Fisher v. University of Texas
Click on the PDF link below for the full version including footnotes.
Introduction
Affirmative action is used to equalize outcomes in education and employment for individuals who are at a social or economic disadvantage. In this manner, many universities have begun to include race in the college-admissions assessments with the hopes of providing more opportunity to under-represented groups and diversifying the learning experience for all their students. However, many opponents of “race-conscious” admissions believe that such policies place certain applicants at a disadvantage and cite the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This clause prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction equal protection of the law. According to Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, university admissions policies are required to pass a “strict scrutiny” standard: they must satisfy a compelling government interest; be narrowly tailored to achieve the interest; and use the least restrictive means to do so. Fisher v. University of Texas evaluates whether the University of Texas’s inclusion of race in its admission process can pass strict scrutiny.
Facts
Prior to 1996, the University of Texas’s (UT) admissions process only considered two factors: academic achievement and race. However, this admissions system was deemed unconstitutional in Hopwood v. Texas, because it placed too heavy an emphasis on race and didn’t show what positive purpose it served. As a result, in 1998, UT instituted a new admission process which stopped utilizing race, and instead used an academic index and personal achievement index scores when reviewing applicants. During this time, UT also began guaranteeing admission to high schoolers from Texas who graduated in the top ten percent of their class as part of a new Ten Percent Plan. However, the 1998 admissions policy was changed again after the Supreme Court decision in Gratz v. Bollinger. UT’s third admissions policy included all parts of the 1998 plan, including the Ten Percent Plan. However, the new policy also amended the Personal Achievement Index scoring rubric to include race as a factor in assessing applicants. It was while this system was in use that Abigail Fisher, who was Caucasian, applied to the University of Texas and was subsequently denied. She did not qualify for UT’s Ten Percent Plan, but rather had to compete with other students in an admissions process which utilized the Academic Index and Personal Achievement Index scores. This prompted Fisher to sue UT after she was denied.
Legal Background
Fisher sued against the inclusion of race in the Personal Achievement Index because she believed such a consideration placed her and other Caucasian students at an unfair disadvantage and violated the Equal Protection Clause. UT defended its race-conscious admissions system by arguing that consideration of an applicant’s race helped achieve the legitimate goal of fostering a more diverse student body. In 2013, the District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled in favor of UT, and that decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. However, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and overturned the Fifth Circuit’s decision for failing to apply strict scrutiny analysis. The case was then reheard by the Fifth Circuit, which applied strict scrutiny analysis and still ruled in favor of UT. Fischer was then granted certiorari to bring her case to the Supreme Court for a second time.
Holding & Reasoning
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that UT’s race-conscious admissions program was constitutional and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court referred to its previous ruling in Gratz v. Bollinger, where it ruled against the University of Michigan’s race-conscious undergraduate admissions policy because it predetermined a certain number of university spots for minority applicants. The Court found that contrary to Michigan, UT wasn’t seeking to allocate a set number of admissions spots for minorities. Furthermore, UT included race only as one relevant element within a candidate’s overall application, along with many other elements of an application, such as grades or extracurriculars. This meant that race was not a determining consideration in the admissions process. The Court also referred to Grutter v. Bollinger, involving the University of Michigan Law School, which stated that an admissions system that considers race as only one of the many aspects of a potential student’s application was constitutional. This is exactly what UT’s admissions system did, because it only included race in addition to the many other requirements of an application, such as grades or extracurriculars. Finally, the Supreme Court held that UT’s purpose for considering race was the legitimate goal of gaining the benefits of a more diverse student body. Since UT’s past race-neutral admissions program had not led to such diversity benefits, the court warranted the use of a race-conscious admissions program that could.
However, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts, dissented from the court’s ruling, arguing that the university had not cited any sufficient reason, besides the abstract idea of educational merits from diversity, for utilizing race in its admissions process.
Analysis
Based on the past cases of Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court correctly decided this case. Although Gratz v. Bollinger ruled against the pre-allocation or set quota of spots for minority applicants, Grutter v. Bollinger allowed for the consideration of race as one of the many elements of the admissions process, which is precisely what UT’s policy does. It is not seeking predetermined targets to be filled by solely minority applicants, but rather sees race as one of the many relevant details of an applicant. Ms. Fisher also failed to address the impact of the Ten Percent Plan on admissions. More students were admitted through the Ten Percent Plan than through the Personal Achievement Index. Therefore, the Ten Percent Plan affected Ms. Fisher’s chances of admission more than the inclusion of race in the Personal Achievement Index. As a result, the constitutionality of an admissions program cannot be sufficiently assessed if one of its biggest components is ignored. Furthermore, diversity is a state interest, and an admissions system seeking to increase diversity by considering race would serve the interests of Texas and provide real benefits. Such benefits include preparing students for a more diverse job environment, ending stereotypes, and promoting tolerance amongst different groups. UT also provided data which showed that their previous race-neutral admissions program didn’t facilitate a diverse environment. This demonstrated the need for affirmative action in UT’s admissions program.
Throughout American history, minority groups have not received equal social or economic opportunities and have often been discriminated against through practices like voter suppression or the redlining of neighborhoods. It is impossible to compare student achievements in a vacuum. Oftentimes, students simply did not have the same starting line. This has held minorities back from building a similar foundation of wealth to that of their Caucasian counterparts. With less wealth and resources, minority groups are less able to prepare for college, and can’t afford the same high-quality tutors or instruction that more privileged students can. Considering race in admissions helps to decrease the inherent disadvantage minorities have when it comes to college applications. This allows for more equal distribution of college opportunities across the state of Texas, and for all students to benefit from such increased diversity. UT’s admissions program accomplished this goal narrowly, since no other viable race-neutral admissions options at the time allowed UT to meet its goal of a more diverse student body. Finally, the ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas affirms that UT will always have the ongoing responsibility to reform or reassess its race-conscious admissions process, something that will ensure that the process remains narrowly tailored and serves a compelling state interest, in compliance with strict scrutiny. This ensures that although race will be used for further insight into a candidate’s application to UT, its consideration will not go beyond what is needed to achieve a diverse student body where the benefits would touch all students.