The end of affirmative action in university admissions has been prophesied since 2003, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. In the majority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that “25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That reckoning has now arrived, and five years earlier than predicted: In June, the Supreme Court ruled 63 that public universities must stop favoring certain applicants, and disfavoring others, based on their race or ethnicity.
“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Chief Justice John Roberts declared, writing for the majority in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. “In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individualnot on the basis of race.”
For everyone who values fairness, individuality, and nondiscrimination, this decision could not have come soon enough. The perniciousness of the admissions system was on full display, thanks to the details of the case. The plaintiffan advocacy organization that filed suits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC)persuasively demonstrated that race-based admissions schemes systematically disadvantaged Asian-American students. UNC, for instance, admitted more than 80 percent of its black applicants but less than 70 percent of its white and Asian applicants. (Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this magazine, submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff.)
At Harvard, discriminatory practices were overt and began with recruitment. Admissions officials would send letters of interest to black and Hispanic high schoolers who received a score of 1100 or more on the SAT. Asian Americans were ignored unless they received at least a 1350. During the actual admissions process, students were sorted into “deciles”10 levels of academic performance. Asian Americans in the top decile were less likely to get in than black students in the fourth decile.
The plaintiff also submitted evidence that Harvard admissions officers tended to give Asian Americans negative scores on the personality rating, a wholly subjective criterion. Favoritism also extended to white applicants from what Harvard describes as “sparse country”: rural states with historically low enrollment numbers. The result was that applicants were judged not solely on the merits of their individual achievements but on immutable characteristics like their race and place of origin.
These schemes, according to the Supreme Court, violated federal law and, in UNC’s case, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. “Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin,” wrote Roberts. “This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits entities that receive federal funding from practicing racial discrimination. But affirmative actiona scheme to benefit racial minorities in hiring, contracting, and school admissionswas viewed as an exception; the idea was to practice discrimination on behalf of historically marginalized groups in order to make amends for past wrongs.
In 2003, a pair of Supreme Court rulings involving the University of MichiganGratz v. Bollinger and the aforementioned Grutterupended that justification. In Gratz, the Court held 63 that Michigan’s undergraduate admissions program went too far in its consideration of race. The university used a point system, with 100 points guaranteeing admission; belonging to an underrepresented minority group was worth 20 points, while a perfect SAT score was worth only 12 points.
In Grutter, however, the Court permitted Michigan’s law school to consider race as one factor among many in admissions decisions, on the grounds that a racially diverse student body was a “compelling interest” of the state. While the decision preserved affirmative action in some formfor perhaps 25 years, per O’Connor’s time limitit forced higher education administrators to change their reasoning: Henceforth, they would have to defend race-based admissions as diversity enhancement programs.
Whether affirmative action actually promotes diversity is up for debate, of course. Schools that engage in racial gerrymandering may succeed in making their campuses more diverse in the most superficial sense without doing anything to improve intellectual, political, socioeconomic, or geographic diversity. No one in a position to defend Harvard’s admissions system ever argued that the school needed more conservative or libertarian representation; in practice, the institution’s position was simply that it needed fewer Asians.
At a time when the Supreme Court is often accused of being out of touch and counter-majoritarian, it’s worth mentioning that Students for Fair Admissions undeniably reflects the will of the people. Race-based admissions systems are opposed by 69 percent of poll respondents, including 58 percent of Democrats, according to The New York Times. Voters in California, a deep-blue state, banned affirmative action twicein 1996 and again, for good measure, in 2020. Faced with this reality, many defenders of affirmative action are trying to change the subject.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DN.Y.), for instance, complained that the Supreme Court had ignored a more serious example of unfairness in higher education. “If SCOTUS was serious about their ludicrous ‘colorblindness’ claims,” she wrote on Twitter, “they would have abolished legacy admissions, aka affirmative action for the privileged.” Other progressive Democrats, such as Reps. Cori Bush (DMo.) and Jamaal Bowman (DN.Y.), made similar observations.
It should go without saying, but the justices declined to adjudicate legacy admissions because this issue was not before them. That said, legislators do not need to wait for the Court; they can and should abolish the practice within public institutions. The widespread practice of granting preferential treatment to the scions of alumni is unfair and has no place at taxpayer-funded colleges and universities.
The fact that legacy admissions still exist is not a reason to maintain affirmative action; eliminating explicit racial discrimination is a noble goal in and of itself. But to any naysayers who disdain the Supreme Court’s ruling because they think legacy admissions should face the same fate: Your terms are acceptable.
ANAHEIM, Calif. — Joel Quenneville returned to hockey Thursday with contrition. He acknowledged mistakes and said he accepted full responsibility for his role in the Chicago Blackhawks sexual assault scandal.
The second-winningest coach in NHL history said he is a changed man after nearly four years away from the game. As he took over behind the bench of the Anaheim Ducks, he vowed to continue to educate himself about abuse, to expand his work with victims, and to create an unimpeachably safe workplace with his new team.
Quenneville also realizes that’s not nearly enough to satisfy a significant segment of hockey fans that believes his acknowledged inaction during the Blackhawks scandal should have ended his career forever.
“I fully understand and accept those who question my return to the league,” Quenneville said. “I know words aren’t enough. I will demonstrate (by) my actions that I am a man of character.”
Ducks owner Henry Samueli and general manager Pat Verbeek strongly backed the 66-year-old Quenneville when they introduced him as the coach of a franchise stuck in a seven-year playoff drought and thirsting for the success Quenneville has usually orchestrated.
He won three Stanley Cups with the Blackhawks and took 20 teams to the playoffs during a quarter-century with four NHL clubs, becoming the most consistent winner of his era.
While Quenneville’s on-ice record was remarkable, his off-ice behavior in 2010 eventually led to his resignation from the Florida Panthers in October 2021 and a lengthy banishment from the league — a ban that many feel should be permanent.
“I own my mistakes,” Quenneville said, occasionally pausing in his delivery of a written statement. “While I believed wholeheartedly the issue was handled by management, I take full responsibility for not following up and asking more questions. That’s entirely on me. Over nearly four years, I’ve taken time to reflect, to listen to experts and advocates, and educate myself on the realities of abuse, trauma and how to be a better leader. I hope others can learn from my inaction.”
Quenneville and Blackhawks executives Stan Bowman and Al MacIsaac were banned from the NHL for nearly three years after an independent investigation concluded the team mishandled allegations raised by former player Kyle Beach against video coach Brad Aldrich during the team’s first Stanley Cup run. The trio was reinstated last July, and Bowman became the Edmonton Oilers‘ general manager three weeks later.
After an investigation and vetting process that lasted several days and included communication with Beach and other sexual assault victims and advocacy groups, the Ducks’ owners ultimately supported the decision made by Verbeek, Quenneville’s teammate in New Jersey and Hartford more than three decades ago.
Samueli and his wife, Susan, and their daughter, Jillian, all spoke at length with Quenneville. Henry Samueli said he is “absolutely convinced Joel is a really good person.”
“I think the four years that Joel spent out of hockey has really given him an opportunity to learn a lot,” Samueli said. “In my mind, he will be a model coach for dealing with situations like this. I think he will be a mentor to other coaches in the league who can come to him and talk to him. ‘How do you handle situations like that? What do you do?’ And they’ll trust him, because he’s old-school who’s changed. The fact that he comes from an old-school hockey culture, but now has transitioned and learned what it means to operate in 2025, not 1980 or whatever, I think that will make a big difference in how he operates.”
Quenneville said he understands just how badly his reputation and career were damaged by his role in the Blackhawks’ handling of the accusations against Aldrich. He remained out of hockey for another season after his ban ended, but became increasingly eager to continue his career last winter while watching games every night and staying closely informed on the league.
“I thought I had some work to do in growing as a person,” Quenneville said. “As far as doing work along the way, I felt I had progressed to an area where the education I had put me in a position where I know I can share some of these lessons and these experiences as well.”
Many people with a firsthand knowledge of Quenneville’s attempts to change himself supported his desire to return. Quenneville said he has spoken to Beach several times recently, including Thursday morning.
He has formed learning friendships with advocates including Chris Jensen, the former University of Wisconsin player and Maple Leafs draft pick who was abused by a coach as a teenager.
“I think most of the athletes that have played for him would argue that this guy has helped me be better,” Jensen said. “He brings all that expertise, and now he’s got additional perspective about how to be available to help people deal with emotional injury. I think he’s in a much better position to be successful.”
The Ducks’ charitable foundation is already involved in charitable and philanthropic work supporting survivors of sexual abuse, and Samueli expects Quenneville to support those efforts.
“I’m very confident that Joel will be a star when it comes to working with those organizations,” Samueli said.
Before his ban, Quenneville spent parts of 25 NHL seasons behind the benches of St. Louis, Colorado, Chicago and Florida, most notably leading the Blackhawks to championships in 2010, 2013 and 2015. His 969 career victories are the second-most in NHL history, trailing only Scotty Bowman’s 1,244.
Quenneville takes over a team with the NHL’s third-longest active playoff drought. Anaheim finished sixth in the Pacific Division this season at 35-37-10 after being in the bottom two for the previous four consecutive years.
He replaces Greg Cronin, who was surprisingly fired by Verbeek after leading the Ducks to a 21-point improvement in his second season.
Quenneville inherits an Anaheim team with an ample stock of young talent, and he was immediately impressed by their roster when he saw it in person during Anaheim’s road trip to Tampa Bay last January. He also coached Ducks captain Radko Gudas and forward Frank Vatrano in Florida.
“One of the best coaches I’ve ever had, and I always tell people that,” said Vatrano, who attended Quenneville’s introductory news conference. “As a person, he’s a great person, too. That’s what always draws me to Q. I’m a huge advocate for him, and I’m glad he’s here.”
A crypto-skeptical commissioner at the US Securities and Exchange Commission has blasted her agency over its settlement letter that could finally end the Ripple legal saga.
The SEC and Ripple filed a joint settlement letter in a New York court asking for the August 2024 injunction against Ripple to be dissolved and $75 million of the $125 million in civil penalties held in escrow to be returned to the crypto firm, according to a May 8 statement from the SEC.
SEC Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw blasted the pending deal in a May 8 statement, saying it would damage the regulators’ ability to keep crypto firms in line and undermine the court’s ruling.
“This settlement, alongside the programmatic disassembly of the SEC’s crypto enforcement program, does a tremendous disservice to the investing public and undermines the court’s role in interpreting our securities laws,” she said.
“In the meantime, the settlement joins a line of dismissals that collectively erode the credibility of our lawyers in court who are being asked to take legal positions today contrary to the ones taken just months ago.”
At the same time, Crenshaw argues that if Judge Torres accepts the settlement, it would erase “the investor protections we already won” and leave a “regulatory vacuum,” until the crypto task force hammers out a regulatory framework.
“The settlement is not in the best interests of the investors and markets that our agency is tasked with serving and protecting. It creates more questions than answers.”
In August last year, a Judge ordered Ripple to pay $125 million in penalties after ruling the firm’s XRP (XRP) token was covered by securities laws when sold to institutional investors.
What’s next for the Ripple case? It’s not over yet
While the SEC and Ripple have agreed to a settlement, it’s still not a done deal, according to ex-federal prosecutor James Filan, because there are several steps before the long-running legal saga can conclude.
For a start, Judge Torres needs to provide an indicative ruling if she agrees to the settlement letter, Filan said in a May 8 analysis on X.
If Torres provides an indicative ruling, the SEC and Ripple will ask the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for a limited remand back to Judge Torres, which, if granted, will result in another motion being filed for the agreed settlement, according to Filan.
“After the injunction is dissolved and the funds distributed, the SEC and Ripple will ask the Court of Appeals to dismiss the SEC’s appeal and Ripple’s cross-appeal. Then it will be over,” he said.
The SEC initially launched legal action against Ripple Labs in December 2020, accusing the firm of illegally selling its token as an unregistered security.
For Mike Sullivan, the latest coach of the New York Rangers, there will be many priorities in taking over a team that missed the playoffs a season after winning the Presidents’ Trophy.
Foremost will be communication.
“I have spoken to every player on the roster over the last three days,” Sullivan said Thursday at his introductory news conference. “I think there is a fair amount of leadership in that room. There’s a lot of character in that room.”
Sullivan, the 38th coach in franchise history and fifth since 2018, agreed to lead the Rangers on May 2 after parting ways with Pittsburgh, with whom he won the Stanley Cup twice.
He replaces Peter Laviolette, who was fired April 19 after the Rangers slid 29 points to miss the postseason despite their raft of talent. It will be up to Sullivan to resuscitate a power play that fell from the league’s top echelon to 28th overall in 2024-25 and help the defense improve in front of elite goaltender Igor Shesterkin, who is coming off his worst NHL season.
Sullivan spent four seasons as a Rangers assistant under then-coach John Tortorella from 2009 to 2013. He also coached current Rangers president and general manager Chris Drury during that time. They also worked together through USA Hockey at the 4 Nations Face-Off in February and will be part of the U.S. contingent for the 2026 Milan Olympics.
“I’ve grown so much respect over the years for the talent that the Rangers have,” said Sullivan, who lost a seven-game first-round playoff series to the Rangers in 2022. “I look forward to the opportunity to get to know these guys on a more personal level. I look forward to the opportunity to work with them, both on the ice and off the ice, to try to become the most competitive team that we can become.”
Also pressing for the 57-year-old Sullivan — who was drafted by the Rangers in 1987 and later played 709 NHL games for four other franchises — is how he will handle younger Rangers such as 22-year-old Brennan Othmann and 20-year-old Gabe Perreault, a first-round pick in 2023 who joined the team briefly at the end of last season.
“Part of coaching or the art of coaching, I guess, is trying to figure out what that daily recipe is that’s best for the player,” Sullivan said. “Sometimes it’s time in the American League as a young player, sometimes it’s time in the National League depending on the types of minutes that that player can play. What I will tell you is that I think it’s important that every player earns their opportunities, that no one’s entitled to an opportunity.”
Sullivan was joined Thursday by Drury, who was awarded a contract extension last month.
Drury’s previous two coaching hires — Laviolette and Gerard Gallant — each lasted two seasons. The 48-year-old executive expressed enthusiasm for the addition of Sullivan, the only U.S.-born coach with multiple Stanley Cup wins.
“The second Mike was available, we quickly and aggressively pursued him,” Drury said. “We are certainly thrilled that pursuit led us to this moment today. There’s a lot of work to be done.”