Amicus briefs and the ABCs of a diverse MIT by Chris Peterson SM '13

A few weeks ago, MIT —  in conjunction with Stanford, IBM, and Aeris Communications —  filed an amicus brief⁠01 For those less familiar with American litigation practices, an amicus brief — from the Latin for <em>friend, </em>also known as ‘friend-of-the-court’ — is filed by entities not themselves parties to the lawsuit in question, but that have a stake or insight into the matter before the Court. MIT had previously filed similar briefs in prior Supreme Court cases having to do with affirmative action, most recently <em>Fisher v. University of Texas </em>back in 2015 (<a href="https://news.mit.edu/2015/mit-joins-supreme-court-amicus-brief-supporting-race-admissions-1102">brief</a>). in two cases that will be argued before the Supreme Court next month.

As MIT’s Office of General Counsel⁠02 Our lawyers. said in a statement:

[This brief asks] the Court to uphold over 40 years of precedent allowing colleges and universities to consider race as one of many factors in admissions.

The joint academic/industry brief addresses (1) the vital role that diversity, including racial diversity, plays in achieving the educational missions of institutions of higher education for all students, with particular focus on STEM fields; (2) the importance of diversity to our nation’s success in the global economy; and (3) why consideration of race as one among many factors in the admission of students to selective STEM degree programs is essential to achieve these critical educational goals.

As the brief explains, “Not only does diversity contribute to better outcomes for students in STEM — it contributes to better science. As such, American businesses at the forefront of innovation in STEM depend on the availability of a diverse cross-section of talented graduates from the nation’s most rigorous and elite institutions.”

Affirmative action is legally complicated, politically controversial, and widely misunderstood. Under the currently controlling precedent, Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), universities are allowed to consider race only to the extent —  and only for the reason —  that it is “narrowly tailored…to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body” by ensuring there is a “critical mass” of students from underrepresented backgrounds, and only if they can demonstrate that no other workable methods can achieve that critical mass.

We’ve written about how we think about the goals of creating a diverse and talented MIT in many posts and pages over the years, including here, here, and here, among others; I would say that how we think about it is most directly explained in our diversity statement, which was developed with a committee of students, faculty, and staff that advises admissions. Or,  as our lawyers put it in the brief when describing our holistic admissions process:

In making undergraduate admissions decisions, MIT does not and cannot rely on grades and test scores alone…[Indeed] MIT regularly denies admission to individuals with very high grades and scores in considering the sum total of all distinctive qualities sought in its students. In selecting the students who will be offered admission, MIT does not use any quotas or targets, and does not engage in racial or ethnic balancing. Instead, MIT considers all aspects of each candidate’s background, including racial and ethnic factors (on a non-determinative basis) among many other factors both qualitative and quantitative. This individual, holistic and contextualized assessment of each applicant has proven to be the most effective way to discern an applicant’s talent and potential.

If this is a topic you care about, I would encourage you to read the amicus brief, which I think was thoughtfully written. I would especially draw your attention to pages 28-35, which describes how —  in the opinion of MIT, Stanford, IBM, and Aeris —  “race conscious, holistic selection processes are essential to achieve diversity in STEM programs at selective colleges and universities, and to create a pipeline of diverse talent in STEM.”

Additionally, last week, the MIT leadership announced our Strategic Action Plan for Belonging, Achievement, and Composition.⁠03 The report notes: "We use the terms belonging, achievement, and composition in this plan because they better reflect how MIT defines community, its focus, and its values than the more commonly used inclusion, equity, and diversity." I’ve started thinking about it as "the ABC report," in the sense that the ABCs are foundational for education. Its executive summary describes the plan as a “framework to support local and Institute-wide efforts to advance practices, systems, and behaviors that promote equity, value differences, and establish conditions so that all members of our community can thrive.” As the report says,

MIT has offered generations of people the opportunity to change the trajectory of their lives, develop their full potential, and have an impact in the world. Yet the Institute is part of a society in which opportunity is not evenly distributed and in which not all people feel their contributions are valued. To more fully live up to its mission and increase its impact, MIT will continue increasing the diversity and sense of belonging in its community, removing barriers to opportunity, and shaping an environment in which all people can do their best work and thrive.

If you’re interested in the concrete goals MIT is setting for itself, and the strategies it plans to take to undertake them, you can download the plan, or read the recommendations on the website.

These conversations aren’t easy. They cut to the core of the hardest issues —  of identity, of justice, of resources, and how we ought to make a common world together. We do not know yet how the Supreme Court will rule in these cases that govern the work of admissions, or if the Strategic Action Plan will succeed on the terms it has set. But I’m glad that MIT is sharing its reasoning in both cases to help inform and advance a broader public understanding of the issues at stake as we see them. As I’ve often said in my information sessions: the word “institution” comes from the Latin for “custom, or way of habit” —  and the way of habit for MIT, at its best, is in the public interest.