A large section of corporations filed briefs to the Supreme Court Aug. 1, asking the court to permit colleges to use race in college admissions.
The court will hear cases against these discriminatory policies during its October term. According to the challengers, affirmative action is not only harmful for white applicants but also results in an “anti-Asian penality”. They claim that Asian American applicants have better academic and extracurricular scores than white applicants.
Some legal observers speculate that the nine-member court–whose six-member conservative majority broke new ground in June by curbing environmental regulatory powers, declaring that the court was wrong to recognize a constitutional right to abortion 49 years ago, and declaring that there is a constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense–wouldn’t have agreed to hear challenges to race-based college admissions unless it intended to curb them.
Institutions of higher education are not allowed to use race-based criteria in their admissions processes in the United States.
Surveys from both Pew Research Center and Gallup have indicated that nearly 75 percent of Americans of all races “do not believe race or ethnicity should be a factor in college admissions.”
The new influx of friend-of-the-court briefs filed by around 80 major corporations came after legal experts told The Epoch Times earlier this year that the Supreme Court may end the use of race-based so-called affirmative action in college admissions in cases that may be heard in the fall.
Their radical legal advocacy aligns America’s large businesses with left-wing advocates such as Marxist-derived Critical Race Theory supporters who believe that race-conscious government policies is essential for eradicating the systematic racism they claim pervades American life.
Critics on the other side, however, believe that using race to determine college admissions is wrong and anachronistic.
They quote Justice Sandra Day O’Connor from the Supreme Court, who believes that this policy is a dangerous one. In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), she wrote, “We expect that 25 years from now the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”
Race-focused admissions decisions are “dangerous,” O’Connor stated. She added that all governmental uses of race should have a logical conclusion .”
Taking the opposite tack, about 70 big businesses argued in a friend-of-the-court brief (pdf) filed with the high court that race-based discrimination improves the corporate bottom line and assures the nation’s educational institutions will churn out employees able to compete in the economy.
” While diversity has many tangible benefits, corporate DE&I (i.e. Diversity, equity and inclusion programs aim to maximize these benefits. However, [the briefing] does not allow applicants to be recruited in a vacuum .”
” These DE&I programs depend on universities admitting students from diverse backgrounds. This is how America can produce future workforce .”
and leaders that are highly skilled and ready to serve the current economy and workforce.
” It is clear that all peoples of different races and backgrounds should be able to sit at the table. This is why increasing diversity in [the signing companies’] workforces would make a significant impact on their business. The signing companies believe this to be enough reason to look for racially or ethnically diverse workers and to encourage diverse leaders. However, this brief describes a variety of tangible, research-backed ways that racial diversity can improve business .
” Empirical research has shown that different groups can make better decisions due to greater creativity, sharing ideas and accuracy,” these are the short claims.
” Diverse groups are better equipped to understand and provide services for a wider range of customers. These are more than just intangible benefits. They also translate to business’ bottom line. It is not surprising that many companies invest heavily in diversity initiatives. This is a tangible acknowledgement of the importance of having a diverse workforce and a strong leadership structure for business success
The briefs came after the court agreed earlier this year to hear Students for Fair Admissions Inc. (SFFA) v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, court file 20-1199, and SFFA v. University of North Carolina (UNC), court file 21-707. The cases were consolidated and were going to be heard together, but the court changed course and on July 22 ordered (pdf) that they be heard separately.
This will allow Ketanji Jackson, the court’s new justice, to take part in UNC while she remains out of Harvard. Jackson graduated from Harvard’s undergraduate school and law school. She recently completed a six year term as a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers. This is the second highest governing body at Harvard. She didn’t participate in the consideration of the July 22 order.
Considered a conservative group, SFFA calls itself “a nonprofit membership group of more than 20,000 students, parents, and others who believe that racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.”
Harvard is the oldest college in America, while UNC is the oldest college of its kind.
Silicon Valley’s giants have signed onto briefs that support the inclusion of race criteria in admissions. American Express Co. and American International Group Inc.
Big Pharma interest signing briefs are Amgen Inc., Bayer US LLC, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Gilead Sciences Inc., Gilead Sciences Inc., Gilead Sciences Inc., Gilead Sciences Inc., Gilead Pharmas PLC, Gilead Sciences Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Gilead Sciences Inc., Gilea and Procter and Gamble Co
A few other large companies have signed onto briefs: Alaska Airlines Inc. and American Airlines.
Big businesses were open to A DE&I consultant.
” This is the right time for the corporate sector to take action and not just do nothing,” Lael Chapell, director of distribution insurance at Coalition Inc. told Bloomberg.
Matthew Vadum, an award-winning journalist and an expert on left-wing activism is