On Halloween, the Supreme Court heard a case brought by Students for Life against Harvard University. The students were pained to learn that they were a part of the 95% of applicants who were rejected from the esteemed university, alleging that they were more qualified than some of the 5% of admitted applicants. The students filed a lawsuit after discovering that the reason for their rejection was, in fact, due to the crux of their identity: conservatism. 

As the Students for Life began presenting their oral arguments, Justice Alito quickly interrupted. 

“We can all agree that diversity of thought is essential in higher education. For a university like Harvard, shouldn’t it be one of their highest priorities?” 

Feverishly agreeing, Students for Life’s attorneys said, “Diversity of thought is certainly an admirable goal. Harvard is discriminating against conservatives. I’m afraid our universities will be completely indoctrinated with liberal research without the essential perspectives of the patriots that fought for our country on January 6th.” 

This procured nods of agreement from Justice Gorsuch, Alito, and Barrett, who just couldn’t understand why Harvard didn’t simply consider the context of applicants’ political parties. Barrett chimed in, as one of the many students who got rejected from Harvard. 

“When I was in high-school, I was president of the Young Republicans Club, Teenagers for Unwanted Babies Club, Q’Anon Advocacy Group, White Women for No Voting Rights, Deport all Immigrants Club, and the Students for Stay-at-Home Moms Club. With my extensive experiences, I was appalled to not get into Harvard! I was certain I’d be admitted, this must be discrimination!”

As Harvard began their oral arguments, the attorneys were met with a flurry of dissent from the previously courteous justices. Harvard argued that the applicants’ conservatism was not a decisive factor in their ultimate decision, rather it was one considered holistically. 

Barrett was confused, questioning why the university didn’t simply guarantee a minimum of 15% of the seats to conservatives through a quota system. 

“Diversity of thought is essential to a college campus,” Gorsuch said. “Even more so, it’s only fair after our country’s rampant history of systemic discrimination towards conservatives that we start to level the playing field. Did you see how Twitter started censoring us? There needs to be more conservative representation.”

Ultimately, the court ruled 6-3 in favor of Students for Life. They found that Harvard was indeed discriminating against conservatives by not accepting an adequate amount, and stated that the goal of diversity is so critical to higher education that it must be considered as a factor in college admissions. 

The thought of sacrificing millions of dollars from their endowment to a losing case was too much to bear for Harvard. But Students for Life jumped for joy, rejoicing that they now had guaranteed admission. 

The precedent set by the case is undeniable. For the first time in the country’s history, minorities have been given equal rights.