Page 27 - 2022 OAD First Monday Journal

quality of the undergraduate school, and areas and difficulty of undergraduate study. “Diversity” under

the policy was not limited to race and/or ethnicity. The law school, however, did reaffirm its commitment

to diversity with special reference to the inclusion of African-American, Hispanic, and Native-American
students, “who otherwise might not be represented in the student body in meaningful numbers.” The law

school endeavored to enroll a critical mass of underrepresented minority students.

The policy was challenged by a white, female Michigan resident who had a GPA of 3.8 and LSAT

score of 161, and was denied admission to the law school. The Court upheld the validity of the law school’s

admissions policy, finding that using race as a “plus factor” to further the compelling governmental
interests that flow from a diverse educational environment is constitutionally permissible.

The Grutter Court concluded that seeking to enroll a “critical mass” of minority students was a

compelling state interest sufficient to justify the use of race in admissions decisions.
2
The case revealed a deeply divided bench. Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissent, in particular, stated

that the law school’s admissions policy was not narrowly tailored to the interest it purportedly sought to

further. The admissions policy was an impermissible effort to achieve race balancing.

• Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016) (Fisher II)
The University of Texas at Austin uses an undergraduate admissions system containing two

components. First, as required by the State’s Top Ten Percent Law, it offers admission to any students who

graduate from a Texas high school in the top 10% of their class. It then fills the remainder of its incoming
freshman class, some 25%, by combining an applicant’s “Academic Index”—the student’s SAT score and

high school academic performance—with the applicant’s “Personal Achievement Index,” a holistic review

containing numerous factors, including race.

Petitioner Abigail Fisher, a white applicant who was not in the top 10% of her high school class, was

denied admission to the University’s 2008 freshman class. She filed suit, alleging that the University’s
consideration of race as part of its holistic-review process disadvantaged her and other Caucasian

applicants, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court entered summary judgment in the

University’s favor, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. This Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case
to the Court of Appeals, so the University’s program could be evaluated under the proper strict scrutiny

standard. On remand, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed the entry of summary judgment for the University.

The Court held that the race-conscious admissions program in use at the time of petitioner’s application

is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.

2 Justice O’Connor noted that sometime in the future, perhaps twenty-five years hence, racial affirmative action would no longer be neces-
sary to promote diversity. SFFA argues that this country has reached a time when race should be eliminated from the admissions process in
a favor of colorblind policies.
23