> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Affirmative-Action Convert

<h3>ANTHONY M. KENNEDY</h3>

By  Eric Hoover
December 11, 2016
Affirmative-Action 1
Stephen Voss

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was going to cripple affirmative action — or kill it. Some scholars and pundits said so. After all, the man who would cast the deciding vote in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin had never supported a race-conscious admissions policy. As the closely watched case dragged on, higher education braced for a defeat.

Then, in June, came the surprising news: In a 4-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Texas’ limited use of race (“as a factor of a factor of a factor”) in its undergraduate admissions process. Instead of shredding the existing legal framework for race-conscious admissions plans, Justice Kennedy preserved it. In a clear, fact-rich majority opinion, the court’s longest-serving member also affirmed the educational benefits of racial diversity, as well as the basis for holistic review.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was going to cripple affirmative action — or kill it. Some scholars and pundits said so. After all, the man who would cast the deciding vote in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin had never supported a race-conscious admissions policy. As the closely watched case dragged on, higher education braced for a defeat.

Then, in June, came the surprising news: In a 4-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Texas’ limited use of race (“as a factor of a factor of a factor”) in its undergraduate admissions process. Instead of shredding the existing legal framework for race-conscious admissions plans, Justice Kennedy preserved it. In a clear, fact-rich majority opinion, the court’s longest-serving member also affirmed the educational benefits of racial diversity, as well as the basis for holistic review.

For Justice Kennedy, 80, the Fisher case marked a conversion. A Reagan appointee with conservative moorings, he had long looked skeptically on plans to enhance diversity. When the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s race-conscious admissions policy (Grutter v. Bollinger), in 2003, he wrote a sharp dissent: “Preferment by race … can be the most divisive of all policies, containing within it the potential to destroy confidence in the Constitution and in the idea of equality.” In scrutinizing Michigan’s use of race, he said, the court granted the university too much “deference.”

He changed his opinion of race-conscious admissions and helped secure them in higher ed.

But in Fisher, Justice Kennedy sang a different tune. By devising a “narrowly tailored” means of considering applicants’ race, he concluded, Texas had struck a necessary balance between its pursuit of diversity and the need to treat applicants equally. “Considerable deference,” he wrote in the majority opinion, “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’s shift intrigued (and baffled) court watchers. “His differing approach to deference [in Grutter and Fisher], whether because of a change of mind or a change of heart,” one law professor wrote, “is telling and critical to his vote and opinion.” Another legal expert, reflecting on the justice’s leftward tilt of late, dubbed him a “sphinx … whose mind has often seemed like a distant and mysterious country.”

ADVERTISEMENT

2016-influencers-promo-names
The 2016 Influence List
The people who made a mark on higher education — for better or worse.
  • Curricular Activist
  • Stubborn Governor
  • Safe-Space Antagonist
  • Survivor
  • Post-Truth President
  • Competency Champion
  • Union Organizer
  • Inequality Fighter
  • Reconcilers

And that only makes him more interesting. In Fisher, Justice Kennedy evinced some of the same qualities that colleges claim to prize in students. One was an ability to consider evidence, of which Texas supplied plenty in support of its policy. Another was a willingness to adjust one’s thinking about the world, leaving old assumptions behind.

A few years ago, Justice Kennedy was prepared to write a sweeping opinion that would undo affirmative action, according to a recent book about his fellow justice Sonia Sotomayor. Yet as the court weighed the facts — not once but twice — he came to see Texas’ plan as legally sound and educationally beneficial.

What happened in between? Since the court took up Fisher, in 2012, the nation’s enduring racial divide has revealed itself, forcefully and often violently, on the streets of Ferguson and Baltimore, as well as campus quads. Many minority students have expressed feelings of anger and isolation, reshaping discussions of campus diversity.

All that might have influenced Justice Kennedy’s thinking, some legal observers suggest. Texas “waged a robust effort to talk not just about the policy, but the policy in context,” says Terri Taylor, senior policy and legal adviser at EducationCounsel LLC. “That helped him understand the bigger conversation that Fisher was happening in, that race matters in America, and these cases aren’t happening in a vacuum.”

Fisher doesn’t give colleges carte blanche. It does offer a guide for pursuing measurable goals via data-driven diversity strategies. Still, metrics aren’t everything, as Justice Kennedy writes. He describes how a process based solely on class rank can exclude deserving applicants, such as a student who stumbles during a family crisis only to bring up her grades: “Any single metric … will capture certain types of people and miss others.” And that’s why colleges dreamed up holistic review in the first place.

ADVERTISEMENT

Eric Hoover writes about admissions trends, enrollment-management challenges, and the meaning of Animal House, among other issues. He’s on Twitter @erichoov, and his email address is eric.hoover@chronicle.com.

A version of this article appeared in the December 16, 2016, issue.
Read other items in this The 2016 Influence List package.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Eric Hoover
Eric Hoover writes about the challenges of getting to, and through, college. Follow him on Twitter @erichoov, or email him, at eric.hoover@chronicle.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin