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
Commentary

The Supreme Court Frees Colleges to Sensibly Pursue Diversity

By Lorelle L. Espinosa and Peter McDonough June 24, 2016
Twice in three years, the Supreme Court has wrestled with the nuances of the U. of Texas at Austin’s plan for molding a diverse campus-learning environment. Thursday’s decision is not a free pass for race-conscious admissions, but instead suggests that colleges have latitude to pursue student diversity in the interest of benefiting education.
Twice in three years, the Supreme Court has wrestled with the nuances of the U. of Texas at Austin’s plan for molding a diverse campus-learning environment. Thursday’s decision is not a free pass for race-conscious admissions, but instead suggests that colleges have latitude to pursue student diversity in the interest of benefiting education.Alamy stock photo

In its second Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin decision (Fisher II) the Supreme Court on Thursday wisely reaffirmed the long-held legal principle that obtaining the educational benefits of a diverse student body is a compelling government interest. The court also signaled, during a time of deep unrest and debate regarding diversity and inclusion on college campuses nationwide, something salient and undeniable: Race matters.

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

In its second Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin decision (Fisher II) the Supreme Court on Thursday wisely reaffirmed the long-held legal principle that obtaining the educational benefits of a diverse student body is a compelling government interest. The court also signaled, during a time of deep unrest and debate regarding diversity and inclusion on college campuses nationwide, something salient and undeniable: Race matters.

The affirmation that American colleges and universities can consider race as one factor in a holistic admissions review is a seemingly obvious and essential concept, especially now. But the long march to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling showed that accomplishing it can be remarkably challenging. Witness the University of Texas at Austin. Twice now in three years, the Supreme Court has wrestled with the nuances of that institution’s “Texas plan” for molding a diverse campus-learning environment.

abigail fisher
'Fisher' in Context: Making Sense of the Decision
Get up to speed with a collection of past Chronicle coverage.
  • 5 Lessons to Take From the Fisher Decision
  • As ‘Fisher’ Churned, Conversations About Campus Diversity Evolved
  • Race-Conscious Admissions Policies Just Got Easier to Defend

That’s quite a story. The bigger story, though, is that there is a Texas plan, that it is different from the Harvard plan, and that both are different from diversity efforts across the broad landscape of higher education, including those in states that ban race-conscious admissions, such as California and Michigan. There is a difference in what a particular college, in a particular place, and at a particular moment, means by “diversity” and how an individual institution goes about encouraging and enabling it.

The American Council on Education and 37 other associations representing the entire spectrum of higher education emphasized in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Fisher II that institutional pluralism is a hallmark of American higher education. The brief stressed that “the constitutionally protected freedom to assemble a diverse student body would amount to little if it did not include the freedom to define the diversity sought” in accordance with each institution’s mission and concept of education.

We said that the interest in student diversity is compelling because it is grounded in educational benefits and rooted in educational judgment. Three times before, in Bakke, Grutter, and as recently as 2013 in its Fisher I ruling, the Supreme Court recognized that when a college sets its educational goals — including a goal of attaining the educational benefits of a diverse student body — it makes an autonomous educational judgment that merits judicial regard.

It has now said so once again. Thursday’s majority opinion gives due deference to an institution in defining “intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission,” and also recognizes that the University of Texas has met its burden.

Of course, the Fisher II ruling does not give colleges unfettered discretion. The court reminded us — as laid out in Fisher I — that institutions must be able to demonstrate that the methods chosen to attain an institution’s own conception of diversity are narrowly tailored to that goal. They must define their goals “by reference to the educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce” (Grutter) and be able to articulate a “reasoned, principled explanation” (Fisher I) for their academic decisions.

In this regard, the Texas plan delivered. The majority opinion from Thursday’s ruling marches readers through the many steps and re-steps that the university took to arrive at its current practice of using the top-10-percent plan to admit roughly three-quarters of a freshman class in combination with an individualized or holistic review process for the remaining 25 percent of the students it admits. In the end, the court acknowledged that the university “articulated concrete and precise goals,” and went through its required due diligence to ultimately conclude that “race-neutral programs had not achieved the University’s diversity goals, a conclusion supported by significant statistical and anecdotal evidence.”

It ought not to be surprising that an institution would consider and simultaneously implement strategies that are race-conscious and race-neutral. Research conducted by ACE at the time that the Supreme Court took up Fisher II makes clear that institutions that consider race in admissions decisions use other race-conscious and race-neutral diversity strategies more often and find them more effective than institutions that use race-neutral strategies alone. In short, striving for a racially diverse student body is not an “either/or” but a “both/and” proposition. As the majority of justices in fact acknowledged, the evidence put forth by the University of Texas clearly demonstrates that race-neutral approaches alone proved insufficient to meet its diversity goals; a finding widely supported by scholarly research.

If the decision had gone the other way and somehow barred the consideration of race, additional harms would ensue beyond the inability of institutions to exercise their best judgment in accordance with each of their missions and as they seek to enroll a diverse class. An insistence on the sole use of race-neutral approaches risks something more: stifling a much-needed conversation about diversity generally — and race in particular — on our country’s campuses, with an accompanying potential to worsen inequities.

We need only look to events of the past many months where students nationwide have demanded not only an increase in the number of minority students on campuses, but also recognition of injustices and increased attention to the experiences of students of color. Moreover, institutions are responding. ACE’s survey of more than 550 college presidents released in March shows that since 2013, campuses have made racial climate a priority and are taking substantive, systemic action by way of increased support for diversity initiatives, student support services, cultural competency training, and public acknowledgment of a range of issues related to racial climate on campus. In this decision, the Supreme Court continued to enable these efforts in ways both legal and symbolic.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now it is up to institutions to continue to do their part, and for the judiciary, legislators, and governors to continue to give them the latitude to go about their business. Colleges cannot claim to provide an excellent education if they send students into the world wearing blinders. Interaction among students from diverse backgrounds exposes each to a broad array of vantage points from which to view his or her own values.

Fortunately for the pursuit of diversity and for the educational benefits that flow from a diverse campus environment, the highest court in the land has made it clear that the ultimate educational judgment as how best to construct a diverse campus remains the purview of individual colleges and universities.

And yes, this is not a free pass. Nor should it be. It also is up to colleges that include race and ethnicity as one factor in admissions decisions to monitor their policies and practices to ensure they meet the high court’s test. That’s not a bad thing. The Fisher II decision recognizes the reality that the formula for educational excellence is ever-changing and almost always affected by context.

The takeaway for colleges from this decision is clear: If you feel as an institution you have gone about the pursuit of a diverse campus in a defensible, sensible way, and you believe in the value of a diverse learning community, you should feel very good today about what you can accomplish tomorrow.

Lorelle L. Espinosa is assistant vice president of the Center for Policy Research and Strategy, and Peter McDonough is vice president and general counsel, both at the American Council on Education.

A version of this article appeared in the July 8, 2016, issue.
Read other items in 'Fisher' in Context: Making Sense of the Decision.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

5 Lessons to Take From the Fisher Decision

More News

Mangan-Censorship-0610.jpg
Academic Freedom
‘A Banner Year for Censorship’: More States Are Restricting Classroom Discussions on Race and Gender
On the day of his retirement party, Bob Morse poses for a portrait in the Washington, D.C., offices of U.S. News and World Report in June 2025. Morse led the magazine's influential and controversial college rankings efforts since its inception in 1988. Michael Theis, The Chronicle.
List Legacy
‘U.S. News’ Rankings Guru, Soon to Retire, Reflects on the Role He’s Played in Higher Ed
Black and white photo of the Morrill Hall building on the University of Minnesota campus with red covering one side.
Finance & operations
U. of Minnesota Tries to Soften the Blow of Tuition Hikes, Budget Cuts With Faculty Benefits
Photo illustration showing a figurine of a football player with a large price tag on it.
Athletics
Loans, Fees, and TV Money: Where Colleges Are Finding the Funds to Pay Athletes

From The Review

A stack of coins falling over. Motion blur. Falling economy concept. Isolated on white.
The Review | Opinion
Will We Get a More Moderate Endowment Tax?
By Phillip Levine
Photo illustration of a classical column built of paper, with colored wires overtaking it like vines of ivy
The Review | Essay
The Latest Awful EdTech Buzzword: “Learnings”
By Kit Nicholls
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The Review | Interview
William F. Buckley Jr. and the Origins of the Battle Against ‘Woke’
By Evan Goldstein

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