Nearly 70 companies, including Google, Meta Platforms Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Apple Inc., reportedly filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on Monday supporting affirmative action in two cases challenging its legality.
The plaintiffs in the two cases, Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions c. University of North Carolina, claim that the university’s affirmative action policies have resulted in the unfair rejection of Asian American applicants.
Major companies argued in the brief that race-based admissions practices help companies achieve their diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, according to Bloomberg.
Businesses, they wrote, “depend on college admissions programs that lead to graduates educated in racially and ethnically diverse environments.” (RELATED: Court examines whether Harvard discriminates in its admissions process)
“Only in this way can America produce a pool of future highly skilled workers and business leaders ready to meet the needs of the modern economy and workforce,” said the amicus brief, according to Bloomberg.
Google, General Motors and Verizon are among 68 companies filing brief with U.S. Supreme Court backing challenged Harvard affirmative action programs https://t.co/QwH4Hb8FeZ
—Bloomberg (@business) August 1, 2022
The complainants in the Harvard the case claims that the university’s policy violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race. The case against the University of North Carolina alleges that by rejecting a racially neutral admissions policy, the school is sacrifice academic excellence. Plaintiffs in both cases seek the Supreme Court’s decision in Grumble against Bollinger be overthrown. In Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the University of Michigan Law School did not violate the Equal Protection Clause by using race as one of the factors considered in its law enforcement practices. admission.
A Boston judge ruled in 2019 that Harvard was not breaking the law by considering race in its admissions policy. The judge wrote that while the university “would likely benefit from…maintaining clear guidelines on the use of race in the admissions process,” the court would not “destroy a very good admissions program that passes the constitutional test, only because he could do better.”