godkiller
"We are the Fury"
----
Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action in University Admissions
Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action in University Admissions
In 4-3 ruling, court advises schools to continuously review race-based policies
By JESS BRAVIN and
BRENT KENDALL
Updated June 23, 2016 5:09 p.m. ET
1151 COMMENTS
WASHINGTON—A divided Supreme Court Thursday upheld racial preferences in public-university admissions, a defeat to a yearslong conservative drive to roll back affirmative action.
The university relied upon “unsupported and noxious racial assumptions” and “never provided any coherent explanation for its asserted need to discriminate on the basis of race,” Justice Alito wrote in the dissent. He read portions of it from the bench, signaling the intensity of his disagreement.
The decision came from a court with two vacant seats—one left by the February death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, another by the recusal of liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who as the Obama administration’s solicitor general had participated in the case at earlier stage
Writing for a 4-3 court, Justice Anthony Kennedy found that the University of Texas at Austin’s challenged plan passed constitutional muster because it was designed in a narrow way to improve diversity on campus. The school’s plan considered race as an additional factor when evaluating certain black and Hispanic applicants.
Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said universities are defined by “intangible qualities…which make for greatness.”
“Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission,” Justice Kennedy wrote in a 20-page opinion.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, saying the court’s decision was “remarkably wrong,” and at odds with a 2013 high court decision in an earlier chapter of the same case.s to support the university’s position.
The case was the fourth time since the 1970s that the court has upheld racial preferences in college admissions, albeit with restrictions against numerical quotas or rigid set-asides for minorities. Justice Kennedy said universities must continually review their affirmative-action policies to assess their “positive and negative” effects, and to determine if they are still needed—a statement that leaves the door open to future legal challenges.
RELATED
“I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has ruled that students applying to the University of Texas can be treated differently because of their race or ethnicity,” Ms. Fisher said in a statement issued by the Project on Fair Representation, an organization that financed her case and has sponsored other litigation opposing government programs that benefit minorities.
“I hope that the nation will one day move beyond affirmative action,” added Ms. Fisher, who has since graduated from Louisiana State University.
The university disputed Ms. Fisher’s claims, saying that it also rejected some minority applicants with higher grades and scores than she presented. But UT also said that maintaining the discretion to select a number of minority applicants that might not otherwise be admitted was essential to its ability to create a diverse undergraduate class.
“Race continues to matter in American life. It affects individuals and communities,” University of Texas at Austin President Gregory Fenves said. “We must make sure all of our students are able to excel in the wider world when they leave campus—educating them in an environment as diverse as the U.S. is one of the most effective ways to do so.”
The bulk of minority students who attend UT enter through a race-neutral program guaranteeing admission to Texas students who graduate in the top 10% or so of their high-school class. Because many schools in Texas remain segregated by race, the approach—which places about 75% of the freshman class—guarantees some minority admissions.
The university fills out the remaining 25% through a “holistic” program that considers race and other personal attributes as factors in the admissions process. It was this program that was at the heart of the Supreme Court case.
Had Justice Scalia still been on the court, he almost certainly would have provided an additional vote to the conservative justices who dissented Thursday, a scenario that could have produced a 4-4 tie. Such a stalemate still would have provided a victory for the university because it prevailed at the appeals court level, but the case wouldn’t have set a new national precedent.
Instead, Thursday’s decision further cements the ability of universities to consider race during the admissions process.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which also is defending affirmative-action admissions against a lawsuit from the Project on Fair Representation, said the ruling reinforced its ability to admit a “diverse and culturally rich” student body.
But Edward Blum, founder of the fair-representation group, said the case against UNC and a parallel suit against Harvard University would proceed, saying their policies differed from UT’s admissions formula.
Harvard President Drew Faust said Thursday’s ruling supported efforts “to foster a diverse campus community that prepares our students to thrive as citizens and as leaders in an increasingly connected world and global economy.”
The Supreme Court’s earlier decision in the Fisher case, from three years ago, avoided any sweeping pronouncements. The justices at the time ordered lower courts to take another look at the university’s admissions plan, saying judges should strictly scrutinize the race-conscious methods schools use to attain diversity.
Nearly the entire education establishment, including Ivy League colleges, flagship state universities and organizations such as the College Board and the National School Boards Association, supported UT’s position, along with the Obama administration and major employers, including 3M Co., Aetna Inc., General Electric Co. and Procter & Gamble Co.
Ms. Fisher drew support from several conservative advocacy groups, including the Pacific Legal Foundation and the libertarian Cato Institute.
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action in University Admissions
Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action in University Admissions
In 4-3 ruling, court advises schools to continuously review race-based policies
By JESS BRAVIN and
BRENT KENDALL
Updated June 23, 2016 5:09 p.m. ET
1151 COMMENTS
WASHINGTON—A divided Supreme Court Thursday upheld racial preferences in public-university admissions, a defeat to a yearslong conservative drive to roll back affirmative action.
The university relied upon “unsupported and noxious racial assumptions” and “never provided any coherent explanation for its asserted need to discriminate on the basis of race,” Justice Alito wrote in the dissent. He read portions of it from the bench, signaling the intensity of his disagreement.
The decision came from a court with two vacant seats—one left by the February death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, another by the recusal of liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who as the Obama administration’s solicitor general had participated in the case at earlier stage
Writing for a 4-3 court, Justice Anthony Kennedy found that the University of Texas at Austin’s challenged plan passed constitutional muster because it was designed in a narrow way to improve diversity on campus. The school’s plan considered race as an additional factor when evaluating certain black and Hispanic applicants.
Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said universities are defined by “intangible qualities…which make for greatness.”
“Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission,” Justice Kennedy wrote in a 20-page opinion.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, saying the court’s decision was “remarkably wrong,” and at odds with a 2013 high court decision in an earlier chapter of the same case.s to support the university’s position.
The case was the fourth time since the 1970s that the court has upheld racial preferences in college admissions, albeit with restrictions against numerical quotas or rigid set-asides for minorities. Justice Kennedy said universities must continually review their affirmative-action policies to assess their “positive and negative” effects, and to determine if they are still needed—a statement that leaves the door open to future legal challenges.
RELATED
- Highlights From the Affirmative-Action Ruling
- Divided Supreme Court Confronts Race-Based College Admissions (Dec. 9, 2015)
- Court Upholds University of Texas Admissions Program (July 15, 2014)
- Justices Take Pass on Texas Affirmative-Action Case (June 25, 2013)
- Justices Clash on Affirmative Action(Oct. 10, 2012)
- Justices to Revisit Race Issue (Feb. 22, 2012)
“I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has ruled that students applying to the University of Texas can be treated differently because of their race or ethnicity,” Ms. Fisher said in a statement issued by the Project on Fair Representation, an organization that financed her case and has sponsored other litigation opposing government programs that benefit minorities.
“I hope that the nation will one day move beyond affirmative action,” added Ms. Fisher, who has since graduated from Louisiana State University.
The university disputed Ms. Fisher’s claims, saying that it also rejected some minority applicants with higher grades and scores than she presented. But UT also said that maintaining the discretion to select a number of minority applicants that might not otherwise be admitted was essential to its ability to create a diverse undergraduate class.
“Race continues to matter in American life. It affects individuals and communities,” University of Texas at Austin President Gregory Fenves said. “We must make sure all of our students are able to excel in the wider world when they leave campus—educating them in an environment as diverse as the U.S. is one of the most effective ways to do so.”
The bulk of minority students who attend UT enter through a race-neutral program guaranteeing admission to Texas students who graduate in the top 10% or so of their high-school class. Because many schools in Texas remain segregated by race, the approach—which places about 75% of the freshman class—guarantees some minority admissions.
The university fills out the remaining 25% through a “holistic” program that considers race and other personal attributes as factors in the admissions process. It was this program that was at the heart of the Supreme Court case.
Had Justice Scalia still been on the court, he almost certainly would have provided an additional vote to the conservative justices who dissented Thursday, a scenario that could have produced a 4-4 tie. Such a stalemate still would have provided a victory for the university because it prevailed at the appeals court level, but the case wouldn’t have set a new national precedent.
Instead, Thursday’s decision further cements the ability of universities to consider race during the admissions process.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which also is defending affirmative-action admissions against a lawsuit from the Project on Fair Representation, said the ruling reinforced its ability to admit a “diverse and culturally rich” student body.
But Edward Blum, founder of the fair-representation group, said the case against UNC and a parallel suit against Harvard University would proceed, saying their policies differed from UT’s admissions formula.
Harvard President Drew Faust said Thursday’s ruling supported efforts “to foster a diverse campus community that prepares our students to thrive as citizens and as leaders in an increasingly connected world and global economy.”
The Supreme Court’s earlier decision in the Fisher case, from three years ago, avoided any sweeping pronouncements. The justices at the time ordered lower courts to take another look at the university’s admissions plan, saying judges should strictly scrutinize the race-conscious methods schools use to attain diversity.
Nearly the entire education establishment, including Ivy League colleges, flagship state universities and organizations such as the College Board and the National School Boards Association, supported UT’s position, along with the Obama administration and major employers, including 3M Co., Aetna Inc., General Electric Co. and Procter & Gamble Co.
Ms. Fisher drew support from several conservative advocacy groups, including the Pacific Legal Foundation and the libertarian Cato Institute.
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
Last edited by a moderator: