Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    University Transformation
Sign In
Legal

Supreme Court Laments How Little It Really Knows About Race-Conscious Admissions

By Peter Schmidt December 9, 2015
Abigail Fisher and her lawyers at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, as the justices heard arguments for the second time in her lawsuit against the U. of Texas at Austin. Lawyers defending the university’s admission policy were pressed for data showing whether it is necessary.
Abigail Fisher and her lawyers at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, as the justices heard arguments for the second time in her lawsuit against the U. of Texas at Austin. Lawyers defending the university’s admission policy were pressed for data showing whether it is necessary.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The Chronicle
Washington

[Updated (12/9/2015, 4:04 p.m.) with additional details of the oral arguments.]

The Supreme Court’s proceedings resembled a debate over educational research more than a fight over constitutional principles as the justices heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a challenge to race-conscious admissions at the University of Texas at Austin.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

[Updated (12/9/2015, 4:04 p.m.) with additional details of the oral arguments.]

The Supreme Court’s proceedings resembled a debate over educational research more than a fight over constitutional principles as the justices heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a challenge to race-conscious admissions at the University of Texas at Austin.

Several justices voiced frustration with how little new information they had before them since they had previously heard the case, two years ago. The last time around, they had ordered the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to give the Texas policy more scrutiny, to ensure that the university was not giving applicants’ race more weight than necessary. Yet both sides in the dispute are still sparring over questions related to the policy’s impact.

“We’re just arguing the same case. It’s as if nothing had happened,” complained Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the opinion of the 7-to-1 majority the last time the court heard the case, and is regarded as a potential swing vote this time around.

He asked if the case could benefit from additional fact-finding as the lawyers debated exactly how many minority students were gaining admission to the Austin campus through its consideration of race, and whether such minority students contributed to the campus’s diversity in measurably different ways than did those admitted without their race playing a role.

Texas considers race as part of a holistic admissions process used to fill a fourth of the freshman seats at Austin. The other three-fourths are filled through a state law that guarantees admission to Texas residents in the top tenth of their high-school class. At the center of the case, Abigail Noel Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (No. 14-981), is a dispute over whether the percent-plan yields enough diversity to render any additional consideration of applicants’ race unnecessary.

Much of Wednesday’s oral arguments revolved around two questions: What are the backgrounds of minority students admitted under the 10-percent plan? And how many minority students would gain admission through the holistic admission plan if it did not consider race as a factor?

The court’s more-conservative justices expressed frustration that they could not get clear answers from the university’s lawyer, Gregory G. Garre, nor from the U.S. solicitor general, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who argued in support of Texas on behalf of President Obama’s administration.

“How does the university know when it has achieved its objective? At what point does it say, OK, the plan has worked?” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked Mr. Verrilli.

25 Years

Justice Roberts noted how the majority opinion in one of the court’s last major rulings on race-conscious admissions, its 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision involving the University of Michigan’s law school, suggested that the nation’s colleges should be past needing race-conscious admissions in 25 years. “It was important in Grutter to say, Look, this can’t go on forever,” Justice Roberts said. “Twenty-five years.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The Grutter majority had said the courts, in the interest of respecting academic freedom, should give deference to colleges’ judgment about whether race-conscious admissions policies were educationally necessary. But Justice Antonin Scalia said determining whether such policies are narrowly tailored to meet educational objectives requires numbers showing their real impact on enrollments, and is “not an academic judgment.”

Mr. Garre argued that diversity at Texas had “languished” in the years that it relied solely on the 10-percent plan for diversity, but he based that judgment largely on the argument that the minority students admitted based on class rank did not include enough students from integrated schools or relatively well-to-do backgrounds.

“One of the things I find troubling about your argument is the suggestion that there is something deficient about the African-American students and Hispanic students who are admitted under the top-10-percent plan,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who described the argument as “based on a terrible stereotyping.”

When Solicitor General Verrilli argued that the maintenance of diversity in selective colleges’ enrollments serves the national interest by promoting diversity in the leadership of its military, Justice Alito asked him if he had any reason to think students admitted through the 10-percent plan would be inferior officers.

ADVERTISEMENT

The court is expected to hand down a ruling in the case by next summer. Among its four reliably liberal voices on issues of race, Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from hearing the case because she weighed in on Texas’ behalf in a lower court when she was solicitor general. If Texas hopes to prevail before the Supreme Court, it will have to win over at least one member of the court’s conservative bloc.

Lost Opportunities

Among the court’s more liberal members, Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed that the Austin campus’s black enrollment had nearly doubled three years after its 2004 adoption of its race-conscious admission policy. But Bert Rein, the lawyer representing Ms. Fisher, argued that it is impossible to know how many of the additional students would have been admitted without any consideration of their race, as a result of other factors such as the university’s consideration of whether applicants had overcome socioeconomic disadvantage.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the 10-percent plan was obviously motivated by considerations of race, as it relies on the racial segregation of high schools to produce diversity among the campus’s freshmen. Moreover, she said, the percent-plan rewards minority students who stay in disadvantaged, heavily-minority high schools and penalizes them for seeking to attend high schools that are integrated.

Both Justice Sotomayer and Justice Ginsburg pressed Mr. Rein on the question of whether Texas was already minimizing its consideration of race by relying on the percent plan for much of its diversity. When they asked him how Texas would achieve diversity in the percent plan’s absence, and he responded that it would need to consider race in its holistic consideration of individual applicants, Justice Sotomayer said, “My God, that sounds like it’s using race more rather than less than this plan does.”

ADVERTISEMENT

From the court’s conservative wing, Justice Roberts challenged Texas’ assertion that it needs enough minority students to have diversity in its classrooms, asking, “What unique perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class?”

Justice Scalia evoked research that suggests the long-term career prospects of minority students are harmed from academic mismatch, or their placement, through race-conscious admissions policies, in academic environments where they are likely to struggle. Asserting that elite colleges account for a disproportionately small share of the nation’s black scientists, he said, “I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.”

Texas has argued that the case is moot, and should not even be before the court, because Ms. Fisher, a white applicant whom the university rejected in 2008, went on to obtain a bachelor’s degree from Louisiana State University and therefore no longer has standing to sue. Asked by Justice Ginsburg if Ms. Fisher seeks any damages from the University of Texas other than the return of her application fee, Mr. Rein said she may eventually ask to be compensated for whatever financial losses she suffered by not attending a college in her own state and not being able to go into her state’s job market with a degree from its flagship university.

“Ms. Fisher has not been admitted,” Mr. Rein said, and “she has suffered the consequences of nonadmission.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Peter Schmidt writes about affirmative action, academic labor, and issues related to academic freedom. Contact him at peter.schmidt@chronicle.com.

A version of this article appeared in the December 18, 2015, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Law & Policy Race
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
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

Related Content

A Closer Look at a Comment From Justice Scalia That Sparked Outrage
‘This Case Shouldn’t Be Here Again’: Activists Outside the Supreme Court on ‘Fisher’ and Race

More News

Illustration of a magnifying glass highlighting the phrase "including the requirements set forth in Presidential Executive Order 14168 titled Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government."
Policy 'Whiplash'
Research Grants Increasingly Require Compliance With Trump’s Orders. Here’s How Colleges Are Responding.
Photo illustration showing internal email text snippets over a photo of a University of Iowa campus quad
Red-state reticence
Facing Research Cuts, Officials at U. of Iowa Spoke of a ‘Limited Ability to Publicly Fight This’
Photo illustration showing Santa Ono seated, places small in the corner of a dark space
'Unrelentingly Sad'
Santa Ono Wanted a Presidency. He Became a Pariah.
Illustration of a rushing crowd carrying HSI letters
Seeking precedent
Funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions Is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Argues

From The Review

Illustration showing a graduate's hand holding a college diploma and another hand but a vote into a ballot box
The Review | Essay
Civics Education Is Back. It Shouldn’t Belong to Conservatives.
By Timothy Messer-Kruse
Photo-based illustration of a hedges shaped like dollar signs in various degrees of having been over-trimmed by a shadowed Donald Trump figure carrying hedge trimmers.
The Review | Essay
What Will Be Left of Higher Ed in Four Years?
By Brendan Cantwell
Football game between UCLA and Colorado University, at Folsom Field in Boulder, Colo., Sept. 24, 2022.
The Review | Opinion
My University Values Football More Than Education
By Sigman Byrd

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: A Global Leadership Perspective
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin