Abigail Fisher's case against the University of Texas at Austin reached the Supreme Court twice. On Thursday, the court made a final call upholding the university's affirmative action program.
(Photo: AP)
Jun 23, 2016
In a narrow but significant 4-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas at Austin's affirmative action program on Thursday.
The court's decision (pdf) in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin "is a victory for children of every color in America," the NAACP Legal Defense Fund said on Twitter.
The case was brought by Abigail Fisher of Sugar Land, Texas, a white woman who said the university denied her admission based on race. Fisher, who has since graduated from Louisiana State University, had the backing of anti-affirmative action groups.
As Voxexplains:
The case, Fisher v. Texas, challenged the University of Texas at Austin's admissions procedures. Most of its students are chosen by admitting the students at the top of every high school class in the state.
Because Texas's high schools are generally racially homogenous, that ensures a certain amount of racial diversity: The majority-black high schools send black students, the majority-Latino high schools send Latino students, and the majority-white high schools send white students.
But the university also admits some students who aren't in the top 10 percent of their high school class through another process, one that takes into account musical and athletic talent, as well as race and other factors. That's the process that was challenged by Abigail Fisher, who was denied admission through the so-called "holistic review."
Thursday's decision, penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, states that the university's race-conscious admissions program is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause. Kennedy was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself for prior work on the case as United States solicitor general and Justice Antonin Scalia's seat has remained vacant since his death in February.
When the nine-justice panel heard oral arguments in the case last year, Scalia drew gasps and controversy when he asserted: "There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school ... a slower-track school where they do well."
On Thursday, Steve Vladeck, CNN contributor and professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, described the ruling as both "something of a surprise" and "an unexpected victory for proponents of race-conscious admissions programs."
"The decision itself is written quite narrowly and tailored to the UT program specifically," he said. "But it's safe to assume that public universities across the country will now look at this ruling as a roadmap for how to constitutionally take race into account in admissions programs going forward."
Indeed, Fusion wrote that the outcome "appears to be a compromise of sorts," noting that "Kennedy, the most centrist justice on the Court, required the university to continue to assess the importance of race-based admissions in creating a diverse student body, and seemed to leave the door open for future challenges to the use of race in college admissions."
Still, despite its narrow parameters, civil rights advocates celebrated the ruling as a major win.
"This decision reaffirms the value of diversity in higher education and preserves the ability of colleges and universities to further that value through well-thought-out admissions plans," said Dennis Parker, director of the ACLU's Racial Justice Program.
"Education is richest when student bodies reflect the unique makeup of our communities," added Judith Browne Dianis, executive director of the national office of the racial justice organization Advancement Project.
"Universities are strongest when scholars contribute knowledge that cannot simply be learned but lived--through their unique cultural experiences, including those influenced by race," Dianis said. "Admissions policies that promote diversity and inclusion are necessary, and we are pleased by the Supreme Court's ruling to reaffirm them."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
aclueducationequal protection clausepublic universitiesruth bader ginsburgscotusuniversity of texasus supreme courtaffirmative action
In a narrow but significant 4-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas at Austin's affirmative action program on Thursday.
The court's decision (pdf) in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin "is a victory for children of every color in America," the NAACP Legal Defense Fund said on Twitter.
The case was brought by Abigail Fisher of Sugar Land, Texas, a white woman who said the university denied her admission based on race. Fisher, who has since graduated from Louisiana State University, had the backing of anti-affirmative action groups.
As Voxexplains:
The case, Fisher v. Texas, challenged the University of Texas at Austin's admissions procedures. Most of its students are chosen by admitting the students at the top of every high school class in the state.
Because Texas's high schools are generally racially homogenous, that ensures a certain amount of racial diversity: The majority-black high schools send black students, the majority-Latino high schools send Latino students, and the majority-white high schools send white students.
But the university also admits some students who aren't in the top 10 percent of their high school class through another process, one that takes into account musical and athletic talent, as well as race and other factors. That's the process that was challenged by Abigail Fisher, who was denied admission through the so-called "holistic review."
Thursday's decision, penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, states that the university's race-conscious admissions program is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause. Kennedy was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself for prior work on the case as United States solicitor general and Justice Antonin Scalia's seat has remained vacant since his death in February.
When the nine-justice panel heard oral arguments in the case last year, Scalia drew gasps and controversy when he asserted: "There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school ... a slower-track school where they do well."
On Thursday, Steve Vladeck, CNN contributor and professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, described the ruling as both "something of a surprise" and "an unexpected victory for proponents of race-conscious admissions programs."
"The decision itself is written quite narrowly and tailored to the UT program specifically," he said. "But it's safe to assume that public universities across the country will now look at this ruling as a roadmap for how to constitutionally take race into account in admissions programs going forward."
Indeed, Fusion wrote that the outcome "appears to be a compromise of sorts," noting that "Kennedy, the most centrist justice on the Court, required the university to continue to assess the importance of race-based admissions in creating a diverse student body, and seemed to leave the door open for future challenges to the use of race in college admissions."
Still, despite its narrow parameters, civil rights advocates celebrated the ruling as a major win.
"This decision reaffirms the value of diversity in higher education and preserves the ability of colleges and universities to further that value through well-thought-out admissions plans," said Dennis Parker, director of the ACLU's Racial Justice Program.
"Education is richest when student bodies reflect the unique makeup of our communities," added Judith Browne Dianis, executive director of the national office of the racial justice organization Advancement Project.
"Universities are strongest when scholars contribute knowledge that cannot simply be learned but lived--through their unique cultural experiences, including those influenced by race," Dianis said. "Admissions policies that promote diversity and inclusion are necessary, and we are pleased by the Supreme Court's ruling to reaffirm them."
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
In a narrow but significant 4-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas at Austin's affirmative action program on Thursday.
The court's decision (pdf) in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin "is a victory for children of every color in America," the NAACP Legal Defense Fund said on Twitter.
The case was brought by Abigail Fisher of Sugar Land, Texas, a white woman who said the university denied her admission based on race. Fisher, who has since graduated from Louisiana State University, had the backing of anti-affirmative action groups.
As Voxexplains:
The case, Fisher v. Texas, challenged the University of Texas at Austin's admissions procedures. Most of its students are chosen by admitting the students at the top of every high school class in the state.
Because Texas's high schools are generally racially homogenous, that ensures a certain amount of racial diversity: The majority-black high schools send black students, the majority-Latino high schools send Latino students, and the majority-white high schools send white students.
But the university also admits some students who aren't in the top 10 percent of their high school class through another process, one that takes into account musical and athletic talent, as well as race and other factors. That's the process that was challenged by Abigail Fisher, who was denied admission through the so-called "holistic review."
Thursday's decision, penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, states that the university's race-conscious admissions program is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause. Kennedy was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself for prior work on the case as United States solicitor general and Justice Antonin Scalia's seat has remained vacant since his death in February.
When the nine-justice panel heard oral arguments in the case last year, Scalia drew gasps and controversy when he asserted: "There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school ... a slower-track school where they do well."
On Thursday, Steve Vladeck, CNN contributor and professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, described the ruling as both "something of a surprise" and "an unexpected victory for proponents of race-conscious admissions programs."
"The decision itself is written quite narrowly and tailored to the UT program specifically," he said. "But it's safe to assume that public universities across the country will now look at this ruling as a roadmap for how to constitutionally take race into account in admissions programs going forward."
Indeed, Fusion wrote that the outcome "appears to be a compromise of sorts," noting that "Kennedy, the most centrist justice on the Court, required the university to continue to assess the importance of race-based admissions in creating a diverse student body, and seemed to leave the door open for future challenges to the use of race in college admissions."
Still, despite its narrow parameters, civil rights advocates celebrated the ruling as a major win.
"This decision reaffirms the value of diversity in higher education and preserves the ability of colleges and universities to further that value through well-thought-out admissions plans," said Dennis Parker, director of the ACLU's Racial Justice Program.
"Education is richest when student bodies reflect the unique makeup of our communities," added Judith Browne Dianis, executive director of the national office of the racial justice organization Advancement Project.
"Universities are strongest when scholars contribute knowledge that cannot simply be learned but lived--through their unique cultural experiences, including those influenced by race," Dianis said. "Admissions policies that promote diversity and inclusion are necessary, and we are pleased by the Supreme Court's ruling to reaffirm them."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.