Texas looms large in the background of two pivotal affirmative action cases before the U.S. Supreme Court that could change how race is considered in American higher education admissions.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard back-to-back oral arguments in challenges to the race-conscious admission processes used by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The court鈥檚 conservative majority appeared to lean toward ending affirmative action, while the three liberal justices defended the practice. A decision isn鈥檛 expected until June.
Both cases are brought by Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit led by Edward Blum, who played a key role in a yearslong legal challenge to the University of Texas at Austin鈥檚 admissions policy. Blum recruited Abigail Fisher to be the plaintiff in that 2008 challenge after UT-Austin rejected the white undergraduate applicant. The country鈥檚 highest court in 2016 UT-Austin鈥檚 right to give a slight boost to Black and Hispanic applicants, but the court has become far more conservative since that 4-3 ruling.
In the lead-up to Monday鈥檚 hearing, the Harvard and UNC cases received over 90 , according to . Many of them cited the previous UT-Austin case 鈥� and some came from Texas politicians, scholars and affirmative action advocates.
Texas Attorney General last year arguing that Harvard鈥檚 admission process is discriminating against Asian Americans and that the country鈥檚 top court should overturn Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 landmark ruling that upheld colleges鈥� ability to narrowly tailor race-conscious admission and diversify the student population for educational benefits. He also that says UNC鈥檚 practices are unfeasible 鈥渨ithout unlawful racial discrimination.鈥�
鈥淭he University of Texas was wrong. And the University of North Carolina and Harvard, respondents here, wrong Asian Americans by denying them an equal admissions process,鈥� Paxton wrote in a more recent .
Students for Fair Admissions argues that Harvard鈥檚 admission process the number of Asian American students who are accepted. For UNC, the issue is more broadly about whether its model has violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires equal protection under the laws.
Notably, Paxton鈥檚 comment on UT stands in contrast to Gov. , who supported the institution when he was the state鈥檚 attorney general. 鈥淭hose who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment did not establish the principle of 鈥榗olorblind鈥� government that opponents of race-conscious admissions too often invoke,鈥� Abbott to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011.
Thirty-three of the amicus briefs support Students for Fair Admissions, while 60 back Harvard and UNC.
Over 80 U.S. senators and representatives 鈥� including nine Texas Republicans, such as U.S. Senators and 鈥� signed on to filed in May 2022 that also challenged Grutter. It claims that the ruling stands against the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race-based discrimination.
Jonathan Mitchell, a former solicitor general of Texas who is better known as the legal architect of the state鈥檚 ban on abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, made a on behalf of America First Legal, a right-wing group led by former President Donald Trump鈥檚 policy adviser Stephen Miller.
鈥淸Title VI] prohibits all forms of racial discrimination at universities that accept federal funds, with no exceptions for 鈥榗ompelling interests,鈥� 鈥榙iversity,鈥� or 鈥榮trict scrutiny,鈥欌�� Mitchell wrote.
But many more Texans have publicly defended affirmative action via amicus briefs.
Among politicians, three Texas Democrats 鈥� U.S. Reps. , and 鈥� signed on to with over 60 other Congress members that calls for the Supreme Court to reaffirm Grutter.
鈥淭itle VI, like [Brown v. Board of Education], has historically been used to dismantle segregation and enhance educational opportunities for all Americans. It remains a vital tool to promote desegregation and educational equity and is entirely consistent with Grutter,鈥� read the brief.
An analysis of years of Texas鈥� top 10% policy 鈥� by which public universities automatically admit the top 10% of students in their high school鈥檚 class without considering race 鈥� maintain and foster representation, the brief notes.
In addition, similar to briefs filed by Asian American groups, it stressed that Asians are not a cultural monolith and that many Asian ethnic groups still benefit from affirmative action. For instance, while 75% of Indian Americans in the U.S. have a college degree, falls to 32% for Vietnamese Americans and 17% for Laotian Americans. Pew Research Center also that Asians are the 鈥渕ost economically divided group in the U.S.鈥�
This criticism against the model minority myth 鈥� which perpetuates the idea of Asians being a successful and deserving minority and is used often as a 鈥溾�� against Black Americans 鈥� is also , including close to 50 based at Texas universities.
鈥淭he notion that race-conscious admissions policies discriminate against Asian Americans relies on and perpetuates harmful stereotypes against Asian Americans,鈥� read from the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represents over 120 organizations and individuals including OCA Greater Houston.
鈥淥pponents of race-conscious policies have long relied on this racist stereotype of Asian Americans to argue that other communities of color 鈥榮imply need to work harder to attain social and economic mobility.鈥欌��
