> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • Student Success Resource Center
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
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
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
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • 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
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
News
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Federal Appeals Court Hands Setback to Foes of Race-Conscious Admissions

By  Peter Schmidt
June 20, 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has decided not to rehear a lawsuit challenging the race-conscious admission policy at the University of Texas at Austin, effectively leaving in place a decision by three of its members to uphold the policy, and handing a major setback to affirmative-action critics who argue that the policy is unconstitutional because race-neutral alternatives exist.

In a decision announced on Friday, judges of the Fifth Circuit voted, 9 to 7, to deny a request that it rehear the case. The majority did not give a reason for its decision, but five members of the minority joined in writing a dissent strongly denouncing the January ruling—by a three-member panel of the Fifth Circuit’s judges—that the full court was letting stand.

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has decided not to rehear a lawsuit challenging the race-conscious admission policy at the University of Texas at Austin, effectively leaving in place a decision by three of its members to uphold the policy, and handing a major setback to affirmative-action critics who argue that the policy is unconstitutional because race-neutral alternatives exist.

In a decision announced on Friday, judges of the Fifth Circuit voted, 9 to 7, to deny a request that it rehear the case. The majority did not give a reason for its decision, but five members of the minority joined in writing a dissent strongly denouncing the January ruling—by a three-member panel of the Fifth Circuit’s judges—that the full court was letting stand.

Although the members of three-judge panel had ruled that they were simply applying the standards articulated in the U.S. Supreme Court’s last major ruling upholding race-conscious admissions, the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision upholding the use of race-conscious admissions by the University Michigan’s law school, the judges who dissented on Friday argued that the January ruling actually had strayed from the Grutter majority’s logic.

The three-judge panel, the Fifth Circuit’s dissenters argued, had watered down the Grutter decision’s standards for determining whether race-conscious admission policies were constitutional, by showing far too much deference to the views of college administrators.

The panel had also accepted the university’s return to race-conscious admissions even though the Austin campus had achieved a significant level of diversity in its enrollment by conforming to a race-neutral state law requiring it to admit Texas students in the top 10th of their high-school class, the dissenters said. And, they added, the panel had appeared willing to let the university consider applicants’ race as much as necessary to try to bring about “an unachievable and unrealistic goal of racial diversity at the classroom level.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Lawyers for the University of Texas at Austin, in their brief discouraging the Fifth Circuit from rehearing the case, had disputed such criticisms of the January ruling and argued that the university’s policies closely adhered to the guidance offered in the majority opinion in Grutter.

Friday’s decision essentially ends the Texas legal battle unless the plaintiffs in the lawsuit can persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case. Edward J. Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, a group that helped represent the plaintiffs, said on Monday that the plaintiffs’ legal team was still reviewing last week’s decision to determine how to proceed.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Law & PolicyPolitical Influence & Activism
Peter Schmidt
Peter Schmidt was a senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education. He covered affirmative action, academic labor, and issues related to academic freedom. He is a co-author of The Merit Myth: How Our Colleges Favor the Rich and Divide America (The New Press, 2020).
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • 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