• On Thursday, SCOTUS ruled that the race-conscious admissions policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC) are unlawful, effectively ending the consideration of race during college admissions. The ruling in the UNC case was 6-3 and 6-2 in the Harvard case, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recusing herself from the latter. New York Times (LR: 2 CP: 5)
• Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts found that the two universities violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, failing to meet standards set by the court. The Hill
• The majority opinion, however, claimed that an applicant's experience with racial issues, for example, could still be considered. Washington Post (LR: 2 CP: 5)
• The plaintiff, advocacy group Students for Fair Admissions, accused Harvard and UNC of discrimination against Asian American and White students. POLITICO
• Meanwhile, the colleges argued that they were justified in using race as one of many factors in evaluating an applicant to increase diversity on campus, permitted under SCOTUS' 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision. POLITICO
• The repercussions of the ruling on education and employment are likely to be determined in future litigation. CNN (LR: 2 CP: 5)

Left narrative:

• The court has effectively forced a naïve "colorblind" interpretation of the constitution on a country that has systematic barriers against people of color. American colleges are on the frontline of this fight as they educate the next generation of leaders, with the court slamming the door on the opportunity many of these students had for a better life. Make no mistake; this case pitted racial minorities against one another in an effort to appease those uncomfortable with racial justice.
  Guardian (LR: 2 CP: 5)

Right narrative:

• The choice in this matter is simple: either we are all equal, or some of us are more equal than others. In their vague, feel-guide push for "diversity," elite colleges excluded Asian American and White applicants for the sake of less qualified candidates, using a "whole person" admissions process as a means to racially discriminate. Our society is built on awards based on merit, not sentimental social engineering, and using race was the wrong tool to help guarantee diversity of experience on campus, which can be done without discrimination.
  Federalist (LR: 5 CP: 5)