More than two dozen former senior U.S. military officials and several prominent Big Tech corporations filed legal briefs to the Supreme Court this month asking the justices to uphold affirmative action in a pair of lawsuits slated for arguments in October.
The filings followed a request by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina last month calling on the high court to allow consideration of race in their admission processes. The pair of colleges will have their admissions policies examined by the justices on Oct. 31 after their January decision to hear arguments in lawsuits that allege factoring race into acceptance decisions unfairly discriminates against Asian American applicants.
While House Democrats, along with prominent civil advocacy groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and the American Civil Liberties Union, have filed separate briefs urging the Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action policies, a group of 35 retired military officers have also requested to preserve allowing service academies to consider race as a factor in admissions decisions, according to court records.
SUPREME COURT SCHEDULES RACE-BASED COLLEGE ADMISSIONS ARGUMENTS FOR OCT. 31
Allowing affirmative action policies aids the military’s goal of creating a diverse officer corps, the military officials say, which include some of the highest ranking officers under former Presidents Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.
“History has shown that placing a diverse Armed Forces under the command of homogenous leadership is a recipe for internal resentment, discord, and violence,” the officials wrote. “By contrast, units that are diverse across all levels are more cohesive, collaborative, and effective.”
Race-conscious admissions policies at universities also help in training future business leaders, according to a separate filing by 80 major corporations, including Big Tech companies Google, Meta, Pinterest, Uber, and Apple. The companies claimed their own diversity and inclusion efforts “depend on university admissions programs that lead to graduates educated in racially and ethnically diverse environments.”
“Only in this way can America produce a pipeline of highly qualified future workers and business leaders prepared to meet the needs of the modern economy and workforce,” the coalition of corporations wrote.
The group that brought the lawsuits against Harvard and UNC, Students for Fair Admissions, claims that Asian Americans are unfairly disadvantaged by the policies and are admitted at a lower rate than white applicants despite having higher test scores on average.
The cases represent the first on affirmative action policies at colleges to come before the justices since the Republican-appointed supermajority on the high court was formulated after the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020.
In the previous 2016 case that upheld affirmative action precedent, Fisher v. University of Texas, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts voted against the precedent.
President Joe Biden‘s Justice Department has also urged the high court to uphold affirmative action policies. Conversely, the lawsuits led by Students for Fair Admissions have been supported in a separate brief filed by 82 Republican lawmakers in May, led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Michelle Steel (R-CA).
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Officials for UNC argued last month there are “dozens” of factors that the university “may consider as it brings together a class that is diverse along numerous dimensions — including geography, military status, and socioeconomic background.” Meanwhile, 25 Harvard student and alumni organizations wrote a brief in July saying race-conscious admissions are best for ensuring effective “participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our Nation.”
Both Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina will be argued before the high court on Oct. 31, and a decision in the case is likely to follow early next year.
