Compelling Interest: Balancing Diversity, Equality, and National Security

The Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking ruling on higher education admissions policies in June 2023 that marked a departure from precedent. The ruling carries profound implications for the diversity landscape of both public and private educational institutions. The Court heard two cases on admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 211 L. Ed. 2d 604, 142 S. Ct. 895 (2022), and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of N. Carolina, 142 S. Ct. 896 (2022) (SFA Cases). In a 6-2 and 5-3 decision, respectively, the justices concluded that the admissions programs employed by both institutions violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which prohibits racial discrimination by government entities. The Court's exclusion of military academies in a footnote has sparked ongoing litigation brought forth by the same plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions (SFA). The organization is a conservative-leaning group that believes that racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. By ruling in favor of SFA, the Supreme Court has essentially reversed the precedent set by California v. Bakke (438 U.S. 265, 1978) which asserted that universities have a compelling interest in fostering diversity within their student body. As a means to achieve this goal, universities can take race into account during the admissions process, as long as their consideration is carefully tailored. This precedent was upheld in both Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. 365 (2016). Now, universities must plan for other ways to ensure an ethnically and racially diverse student body which will help promote a more equitable society in the future. 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The majority opinion acknowledged that the programs at UNC and Harvard have good intentions of “training future leaders in the public and private sector” and “promoting the robust exchange of ideas.” However, Roberts’s primary qualm with the universities’ programs was their lack of focus. Precedent only allows race to be considered in programs if their goals are “narrowly tailored.” In the case of the UNC and Harvard programs, Roberts argued that courts are unable to measure how sufficient the training is for students of color or if the universities’ programs truly encourage the exchange of ideas. Roberts further contended that the programs have run their course. In Grutter v Bollinger, the majority opinion suggested that “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest” of diversity. The majority in the SFA Cases decided that the consideration of race is no longer necessary for universities to advance Diversity Equity and Inclusion initiatives (DEI). 

The majority opinion notably excluded military academies from the ruling. The cases before the Supreme Court addressed private and public educational institutions, so the Court pointedly decided to not rule on service academies’, including the U.S. Naval Academy and West Point, ability to use race-based consideration admissions policies. However, Justice Roberts addressed the academies in a footnote stating: “This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.” The footnote recognized the United States government's argument that "admissions programs based on race serve compelling interests at our Nation's military academies." 

The Court's opinion that service academies serve a compelling interest comes from historical precedent dating back to the Vietnam War. As journalist Gene Demby points out on the NPR Podcast Code Switch, currently, “people of color make up about 40% of all service members…. but when it comes to those higher-up positions - the officers we're talking about - 3 out of every 4 officers are white.” A notable disparity exists here, raising questions about a narrative where those in positions of authority, issuing orders, are predominantly white, while nearly 50% of those receiving orders are people of color. This has long been the dynamic in the military. During times of war, it poses serious national security issues. Demby states that during the Vietnam War, you had “Black soldiers in Vietnam who were regularly deserting because of the way they were being treated by racist white commanding officers. You [had] Black soldiers who are way overrepresented among draftees and casualties.” Graduates from military academies such as West Point and the Naval Academy automatically attain higher ranks in the military. Promoting diversity within the student body at these academies not only ensures a racially diverse pool of future officers but also contains a compelling interest for national security.

Given that the SFA decision excluded military academies, Students for Fair Admissions filed a lawsuit against West Point on September 19th and the United States Naval Academy on October 5th. The group filed the lawsuit against West Point in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the lawsuit against the US Naval Academy in the Northern District Court of Maryland. SFA is claiming that the Military Academies admissions policies are violating the 5th Amendment which “contains an equal-protection principle that binds the federal government and is no less strict than the Equal Protection Clause that binds the states.” These cases are still pending. 

While the majority opinion excluded military academies from its immediate purview, it acknowledged their unique position in promoting diversity for national security reasons. This acknowledgment has sparked subsequent legal challenges against West Point and the U.S. Naval Academy, forcing Courts to balance the complex and compelling national security interests and constitutional principles. As private and public higher education institutions grapple with the aftermath of this ruling, the landscape of higher education stands at a crossroads. The challenge is to reshape and reimagine admissions policies to not only adhere to the Constitution but reaffirm a commitment to fostering an inclusive academic environment that values diversity. This will require institutions to implement creative admissions policies that do not rely solely on race as a criterion for diversity. Instead, they must have a holistic approach that considers a broad spectrum of factors, including socioeconomic background, geographic location, and unique life experiences. This reimagining demands a departure from a one-size-fits-all mentality to recognize and appreciate the diverse talents, perspectives, and contributions that individuals from various backgrounds bring to the academic community. While these rulings may pose potential threats to diversity within higher education institutions, such risks can be mitigated if admissions policies deliberately prioritize the establishment of a racially diverse and inclusive student population.

Jacqueline Metzler is a sophomore at Brown University pursuing an International and Public Affairs concentration and a Data Literacy certificate. She is a staff writer for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at jacqueline_metzler@brown.edu.

Maia Eng (‘26) is a sophomore at Brown University concentrating in International and Public Affairs. She is an editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at maia_lourdes_eng@brown.edu.