But in Mr. Blum’s view, the court’s opinion was written narrowly enough that it leaves a path forward for other challenges to college race-based admissions policies, including two pending cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
Advertisement
But the school has an “obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies”, it said.
The state’s University System is reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision and through a spokesman declined to comment further.
Kennedy, in the court opinion, wrote that universities must be granted some leeway in how they approach admissions because every university is defined by “intangible qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness” (here Kennedy was quoting from a 1950 court decision).
Harpalani said the Supreme Court’s decision just gives other colleges and universities a “blueprint” for how to justify their race-conscious admissions policies.
Fisher alleged that the University of Texas disadvantaged her (a Caucasian) compared to students of racial minorities in the admissions process, positing that this discrimination against her violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“It’s pretty unusual for the Supreme Court to decide to hear a case a second time”, Satija says.
In his dissent Justice Samuel Alito said “the university had not demonstrated the need for race-based admissions” and that its program benefited advantaged students over impoverished ones. As long as universities like the Univ. of Texas continue to treat applicants differently by race and ethnicity, the social fabric that holds us together as a nation will be weakened.
“Our job is to shape a class of students that’s bringing diversity in all of its forms”, Gundy said, “and we believe a student’s race is an important part”.
In the university’s defense, the school accepts students who are top 10% of their high school graduating class, regardless of race.
Kumble Subbaswamy, the chancellor of Massachusetts’ flagship public college UMass Amherst, praises the ruling and says it will help students better prepare for a diverse workforce and a diverse world.
While the Court determined that the undergraduate policies regarding racial preference were unconstitutional in Gratz v. Bollinger, the law school’s affirmative action policies were found constitutional by a 5-4 margin.
In 2013, ProPublica’s Nikole Hannah-Jones highlighted an overlooked, deeply ironic fact about the case: When one looked at Fisher’s arguments, she had not actually been denied admission because she is white, but rather because of her inadequate academic achievements.
Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because of her involvement with the case during her tenure as Solicitor General.
Because the court had also condemned the use of crude racial quotas, the University of Texas created a system in which race is “a factor of a factor of a factor of a factor” in evaluating a small subset of student applications.
“I am thrilled and gratified by today’s ruling”, Mr. Fenves said in a statement. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, chairs the Texas Senate Higher Education Committee.
“The people who are in favor of affirmative action and diversity are going to trumpet this as a big victory for their side of the equation…”
Advertisement
The University only resorted to using race “as a factor of a factor of a factor” following an extensive study which concluded that race-neutral policies had not been successful in meeting the goals in the preceding bullet point.
