fisher
university
texas
austin
et
argued
december
decided
june
university
texas
austin
university
uses
undergraduate
admissions
system
containing
two
components
first
required
state
top
ten
percent
law
offers
admission
students
graduate
texas
high
school
top
class
fills
remainder
incoming
freshman
class
combining
applicant
academic
index
student
sat
score
high
school
academic
performance
applicant
personal
achievement
index
holistic
review
containing
numerous
factors
including
race
university
adopted
current
admissions
process
admissions
process
undertaken
wake
grutter
bollinger
gratz
bollinger
led
conclude
prior
system
reach
goal
providing
educational
benefits
diversity
undergraduate
students
petitioner
abigail
fisher
top
high
school
class
denied
admission
university
freshman
class
filed
suit
alleging
university
consideration
race
part
process
disadvantaged
caucasian
applicants
violation
equal
protection
clause
district
entered
summary
judgment
university
favor
fifth
circuit
affirmed
vacated
judgment
fisher
university
tex
austin
fisher
remanded
case
appeals
university
program
evaluated
proper
strict
scrutiny
standard
remand
fifth
circuit
affirmed
entry
summary
judgment
university
held
admissions
program
use
time
petitioner
application
lawful
equal
protection
clause
pp
fisher
sets
three
controlling
principles
relevant
assessing
constitutionality
public
university
affirmative
action
program
first
university
may
consider
race
unless
admissions
process
withstand
strict
scrutiny
must
show
purpose
interest
constitutionally
permissible
substantial
use
classification
necessary
accomplish
purpose
second
decision
pursue
educational
benefits
flow
student
body
diversity
substantial
measure
academic
judgment
complete
judicial
deference
proper
third
determining
whether
use
race
narrowly
tailored
achieve
university
permissible
goals
school
bears
burden
demonstrating
available
workable
alternatives
suffice
pp
university
approach
admissions
gives
rise
unusual
consequence
component
largest
impact
petitioner
chances
admission
school
consideration
race
process
top
ten
percent
plan
petitioner
challenge
percentage
part
plan
record
devoid
evidence
impact
diversity
remand
factfinding
serve
little
purpose
however
time
petitioner
application
current
plan
effect
three
years
event
university
lacked
authority
alter
percentage
plan
mandated
texas
legislature
circumstances
refute
criticism
university
make
good
faith
efforts
comply
law
university
however
continuing
obligation
satisfy
strict
scrutiny
burden
periodically
reassessing
admission
program
constitutionality
efficacy
light
school
experience
data
gathered
since
adopting
admissions
plan
tailoring
approach
ensure
race
plays
greater
role
necessary
meet
compelling
interests
pp
drawing
reasonable
inferences
favor
petitioner
shown
preponderance
evidence
denied
equal
treatment
time
application
rejected
pp
petitioner
claims
university
articulated
compelling
interest
sufficient
clarity
failed
state
precisely
level
minority
enrollment
constitute
critical
mass
however
compelling
interest
justifies
consideration
race
college
admissions
interest
enrolling
certain
number
minority
students
interest
obtaining
educational
benefits
flow
student
body
diversity
fisher
since
university
prohibited
seeking
particular
number
quota
minority
students
faulted
failing
specify
particular
level
minority
enrollment
believes
educational
benefits
diversity
obtained
hand
asserting
interest
educational
benefits
diversity
writ
large
insufficient
university
goals
elusory
amorphous
must
sufficiently
measurable
permit
judicial
scrutiny
policies
adopted
reach
record
reveals
university
articulated
concrete
precise
goals
ending
stereotypes
promoting
understanding
preparing
students
increasingly
diverse
workforce
society
cultivating
leaders
legitimacy
eyes
citizenry
mirror
compelling
interest
approved
prior
cases
also
gave
reasoned
principled
explanation
decision
proposal
written
study
revealed
policies
programs
meet
goals
pp
petitioner
also
claims
university
need
consider
race
already
achieved
critical
mass
top
ten
percent
plan
holistic
review
record
however
reveals
university
studied
deliberated
months
concluding
programs
achieved
university
diversity
goals
conclusion
supported
significant
statistical
anecdotal
evidence
pp
petitioner
argues
unnecessary
consider
race
consideration
minor
impact
number
minority
students
school
admitted
record
shows
consideration
race
meaningful
still
limited
effect
freshman
class
diversity
race
consciousness
played
role
small
portion
admissions
decisions
hallmark
narrow
tailoring
evidence
unconstitutionality
finally
petitioner
argues
numerous
means
achieve
university
goals
however
record
reveals
none
alternatives
workable
means
attaining
university
educational
goals
time
application
pp
affirmed
kennedy
delivered
opinion
ginsburg
breyer
sotomayor
joined
thomas
filed
dissenting
opinion
alito
filed
dissenting
opinion
roberts
thomas
joined
kagan
took
part
consideration
decision
case
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
abigail
noel
fisher
petitioner
university
texas
austin
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
june
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
asked
consider
whether
admissions
program
university
texas
lawful
equal
protection
clause
university
texas
austin
university
relies
upon
complex
system
admissions
undergone
significant
evolution
past
two
decades
university
made
admissions
decisions
primarily
based
measure
called
academic
index
ai
calculated
combining
applicant
sat
score
academic
performance
high
school
assessing
applicants
preference
given
racial
minorities
appeals
fifth
circuit
invalidated
admissions
system
holding
consideration
race
college
admissions
violates
equal
protection
clause
see
hopwood
texas
one
year
later
university
adopted
new
admissions
policy
instead
considering
race
university
began
making
admissions
decisions
based
applicant
ai
personal
achievement
index
pai
pai
numerical
score
based
holistic
review
application
included
number
applicant
essays
leadership
work
experience
extracurricular
activities
community
service
special
characteristics
might
give
admissions
committee
insight
student
background
consistent
hopwood
race
consideration
calculating
applicant
ai
pai
texas
legislature
responded
hopwood
well
enacted
commonly
known
top
ten
percent
law
tex
educ
code
ann
west
cum
supp
name
suggests
top
ten
percent
law
guarantees
college
admission
students
graduate
texas
high
school
top
percent
class
students
may
choose
attend
public
universities
state
university
implemented
top
ten
percent
law
first
admitting
student
qualified
admission
law
university
filled
remainder
incoming
freshman
class
using
combination
applicant
ai
pai
scores
without
considering
race
university
used
admissions
system
decided
companion
cases
grutter
bollinger
gratz
bollinger
gratz
struck
university
michigan
undergraduate
system
admissions
time
allocated
predetermined
points
racial
minority
candidates
see
grutter
however
upheld
university
michigan
law
school
system
holistic
review
system
mechanically
assign
points
rather
treated
race
relevant
feature
within
broader
context
candidate
application
see
upholding
nuanced
use
race
grutter
implicitly
overruled
hopwood
categorical
prohibition
wake
grutter
university
embarked
upon
study
seeking
ascertain
whether
admissions
policy
allowing
provide
educational
benefits
diverse
student
body
university
undergraduate
students
app
affidavit
bruce
walker
walker
aff
see
also
university
concluded
admissions
policy
providing
benefits
supp
app
change
system
university
submitted
proposal
board
regents
requested
permission
begin
taking
race
consideration
one
many
ways
academically
qualified
individual
might
contribute
benefit
rich
diverse
challenging
educational
environment
board
approved
proposal
university
adopted
new
admissions
policy
implement
university
continued
use
admissions
policy
day
although
university
new
admissions
policy
direct
result
grutter
identical
policy
approved
case
instead
consistent
state
legislative
directive
university
continues
fill
significant
majority
class
top
ten
percent
plan
plan
today
percent
places
freshman
class
filled
plan
practical
matter
percent
cap
fixed
statute
means
plan
continues
referenced
top
ten
percent
plan
student
actually
needs
finish
top
seven
eight
percent
class
order
admitted
category
university
adopt
approach
similar
one
grutter
remaining
percent
incoming
class
portion
class
continues
admitted
based
combination
ai
pai
scores
however
race
given
weight
subfactor
within
pai
pai
number
best
based
two
primary
components
first
component
average
score
reader
gives
applicant
two
required
essays
second
component
review
results
another
score
personal
achievement
score
pas
pas
determined
separate
reader
rereads
applicant
required
essays
reviews
supplemental
information
applicant
submits
letters
recommendation
resumes
additional
optional
essay
writing
samples
artwork
etc
evaluates
applicant
potential
contributions
university
student
body
based
applicant
leadership
experience
extracurricular
activities
community
service
special
circumstances
special
circumstances
include
socioeconomic
status
applicant
family
socioeconomic
status
applicant
school
applicant
family
responsibilities
whether
applicant
lives
home
applicant
sat
score
relation
average
sat
score
applicant
school
language
spoken
applicant
home
finally
applicant
race
see
app
essay
readers
readers
assign
applicants
pai
undergo
extensive
training
ensure
scoring
applicants
consistently
deposition
brian
breman
record
wd
tex
doc
admissions
office
also
undertakes
regular
reliability
analyses
measure
frequency
readers
scoring
within
one
point
app
affidavit
gary
lavergne
see
also
deposition
kedra
ishop
ishop
intensive
training
reliability
analyses
aim
ensure
similarly
situated
applicants
treated
identically
regardless
admissions
officer
reads
file
essay
readers
calculated
applicant
ai
pai
scores
admissions
officers
school
within
university
set
cutoff
score
combination
admission
admit
applicants
cutoff
point
setting
cutoff
admissions
officers
know
many
applicants
received
given
score
combination
know
factors
went
calculating
applicants
scores
admissions
officers
make
final
decision
whether
particular
applicant
admitted
make
decision
without
knowing
applicant
race
race
enters
admissions
process
one
stage
one
stage
calculation
pas
therefore
although
admissions
officers
consider
race
positive
feature
minority
student
application
dispute
race
factor
factor
factor
calculus
supp
wd
tex
furthermore
consideration
race
contextual
operate
mechanical
plus
factor
underrepresented
minorities
plaintiffs
cite
evidence
show
racial
groups
hispanics
excluded
benefitting
ut
consideration
race
admissions
defendants
point
consideration
race
within
full
context
entire
application
may
beneficial
ut
austin
applicant
including
whites
see
also
brief
asian
american
legal
defense
education
fund
et
al
amici
curiae
contention
university
discriminates
entirely
unsupported
evidence
record
empirical
data
also
dispute
however
race
considered
conjunction
aspects
applicant
background
alter
applicant
pas
score
thus
race
indirect
fashion
considered
factors
make
applicant
ai
pai
scores
make
difference
whether
application
accepted
rejected
petitioner
abigail
fisher
applied
admission
university
freshman
class
top
percent
high
school
class
evaluated
admission
holistic
review
petitioner
application
rejected
petitioner
filed
suit
alleging
university
consideration
race
part
process
disadvantaged
caucasian
applicants
violation
equal
protection
clause
see
amdt
state
shall
deny
person
within
jurisdiction
equal
protection
laws
district
entered
summary
judgment
university
favor
appeals
affirmed
granted
certiorari
vacated
judgment
appeals
fisher
university
tex
austin
fisher
applied
overly
deferential
standard
assessing
constitutionality
university
program
remanded
case
appeals
assess
parties
claims
correct
legal
standard
without
remanding
district
appeals
affirmed
entry
summary
judgment
university
favor
granted
certiorari
second
time
affirms
ii
fisher
set
forth
three
controlling
principles
relevant
assessing
constitutionality
public
university
program
first
racial
characteristics
seldom
provide
relevant
basis
disparate
treatment
richmond
croson
ace
may
considered
university
unless
admissions
process
withstand
strict
fisher
slip
strict
scrutiny
requires
university
demonstrate
clarity
interest
constitutionally
permissible
substantial
use
classification
necessary
accomplishment
purpose
ibid
second
fisher
confirmed
decision
pursue
educational
benefits
flow
student
body
diversity
substantial
measure
academic
judgment
complete
judicial
deference
proper
slip
op
university
impose
fixed
quota
otherwise
define
diversity
specified
percentage
particular
group
merely
race
ethnic
origin
ibid
however
university
gives
reasoned
principled
explanation
decision
deference
must
given
university
conclusion
based
experience
expertise
diverse
student
body
serve
educational
goals
ibid
internal
quotation
marks
citation
omitted
third
fisher
clarified
deference
owed
determining
whether
use
race
narrowly
tailored
achieve
university
permissible
goals
slip
university
fisher
explained
bears
burden
proving
nonracial
approach
promote
interest
educational
benefits
diversity
well
tolerable
administrative
expense
slip
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
though
arrow
tailoring
require
exhaustion
every
conceivable
alternative
require
university
choose
maintaining
reputation
excellence
fulfilling
commitment
provide
educational
opportunities
members
racial
groups
grutter
impose
university
ultimate
burden
demonstrating
alternatives
available
workable
suffice
fisher
slip
fisher
set
forth
controlling
principles
taking
position
constitutionality
admissions
program
issue
case
held
district
appeals
confined
strict
scrutiny
inquiry
narrow
way
deferring
university
good
faith
use
racial
classifications
slip
remanded
case
instructions
evaluate
record
correct
standard
determine
whether
university
made
showing
plan
narrowly
tailored
achieve
educational
benefits
flow
diversity
slip
remand
appeals
determined
program
conformed
strict
scrutiny
mandated
fisher
see
judge
garza
dissented
iii
university
program
sui
generis
unlike
approaches
college
admissions
considered
combines
holistic
review
percentage
plan
approach
gave
rise
unusual
consequence
case
component
university
admissions
policy
largest
impact
petitioner
chances
admission
school
consideration
race
process
rather
top
ten
percent
plan
petitioner
graduate
top
percent
high
school
class
categorically
ineligible
slots
incoming
freshman
class
seems
quite
plausible
think
petitioner
better
chance
admitted
university
school
used
holistic
review
select
entire
incoming
class
case
grutter
despite
top
ten
percent
plan
outsized
effect
petitioner
chances
admission
challenged
reason
throughout
litigation
top
ten
percent
plan
taken
somewhat
artificially
given
premise
petitioner
acceptance
top
ten
percent
plan
complicates
review
particular
led
record
almost
devoid
information
students
secured
admission
university
plan
thus
know
students
admitted
solely
based
class
rank
differ
contribution
diversity
students
admitted
holistic
review
ordinary
case
evidentiary
gap
perhaps
filled
remand
district
factfinding
petitioner
application
rejected
however
university
combined
approach
admission
effect
three
years
studies
undertaken
eight
years
since
may
significant
value
determining
constitutionality
university
current
admissions
policy
evidence
little
bearing
whether
petitioner
received
equal
treatment
application
rejected
remand
therefore
factfinding
limited
narrow
sample
review
might
yield
little
insight
furthermore
discussed
university
lacks
authority
alter
role
top
ten
percent
plan
admissions
process
plan
mandated
texas
legislature
wake
hopwood
university
like
petitioner
litigation
likely
taken
plan
given
since
implementation
university
reason
think
deviate
top
ten
percent
plan
similarly
reason
keep
extensive
data
plan
students
admitted
particularly
years
fisher
clarified
stringency
burden
school
employs
review
circumstances
case
remand
nothing
prolong
suit
already
persisted
eight
years
cost
parties
sides
significant
resources
petitioner
long
since
graduated
another
college
university
policy
data
first
based
may
evolved
changed
material
ways
fact
case
litigated
somewhat
artificial
basis
furthermore
may
limit
value
prospective
guidance
texas
legislature
enacting
top
ten
percent
plan
much
criticized
responding
hopwood
time
binding
law
state
texas
legislative
response
turn
circumscribed
university
discretion
crafting
admissions
policy
circumstances
refute
criticism
university
make
efforts
comply
law
diminish
however
university
continuing
obligation
satisfy
burden
strict
scrutiny
light
changing
circumstances
university
engages
periodic
reassessment
constitutionality
efficacy
admissions
program
see
supp
app
app
going
forward
assessment
must
undertaken
light
experience
school
accumulated
data
gathered
since
adoption
admissions
plan
university
examines
data
remain
mindful
diversity
takes
many
forms
formalistic
racial
classifications
may
sometimes
fail
capture
diversity
dimensions
used
divisive
manner
undermine
educational
benefits
university
values
regular
evaluation
data
consideration
student
experience
university
must
tailor
approach
light
changing
circumstances
ensuring
race
plays
greater
role
necessary
meet
compelling
interest
university
examination
data
acquired
years
since
petitioner
application
reasons
must
proceed
full
respect
constraints
imposed
equal
protection
clause
type
data
collected
manner
considered
significant
bearing
university
must
shape
admissions
policy
satisfy
strict
scrutiny
years
come
however
necessarily
limited
narrow
question
whether
drawing
reasonable
inferences
favor
petitioner
shown
preponderance
evidence
denied
equal
treatment
time
application
rejected
iv
seeking
reverse
judgment
appeals
petitioner
makes
four
arguments
first
argues
university
articulated
compelling
interest
sufficient
clarity
according
petitioner
university
must
set
forth
precisely
level
minority
enrollment
constitute
critical
mass
without
clearer
sense
university
ultimate
goal
petitioner
argues
reviewing
assess
whether
university
admissions
program
narrowly
tailored
goal
cases
made
clear
however
compelling
interest
justifies
consideration
race
college
admissions
interest
enrolling
certain
number
minority
students
rather
university
may
institute
admissions
program
means
obtaining
educational
benefits
flow
student
body
diversity
fisher
slip
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
also
grutter
said
enrolling
diverse
student
body
promotes
understanding
helps
break
racial
stereotypes
enables
students
better
understand
persons
different
races
internal
quotation
marks
alteration
omitted
equally
important
student
body
diversity
promotes
learning
outcomes
better
prepares
students
increasingly
diverse
workforce
society
ibid
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
increasing
minority
enrollment
may
instrumental
educational
benefits
petitioner
seems
suggest
goal
reduced
pure
numbers
indeed
since
university
prohibited
seeking
particular
number
quota
minority
students
faulted
failing
specify
particular
level
minority
enrollment
believes
educational
benefits
diversity
obtained
hand
asserting
interest
educational
benefits
diversity
writ
large
insufficient
university
goals
elusory
amorphous
must
sufficiently
measurable
permit
judicial
scrutiny
policies
adopted
reach
record
reveals
first
setting
forth
current
admissions
policy
university
articulated
concrete
precise
goals
first
page
proposal
consider
race
ethnicity
admissions
university
identifies
educational
values
seeks
realize
admissions
process
destruction
stereotypes
ion
understanding
preparation
student
body
increasingly
diverse
workforce
society
ion
set
leaders
legitimacy
eyes
citizenry
supp
app
see
also
app
deposition
bruce
walker
walker
dep
walker
aff
setting
forth
goals
later
proposal
university
explains
strives
provide
academic
environment
offers
robust
exchange
ideas
exposure
differing
cultures
preparation
challenges
increasingly
diverse
workforce
acquisition
competencies
required
future
leaders
supp
app
objectives
general
matter
mirror
compelling
interest
approved
prior
cases
university
provided
addition
reasoned
principled
explanation
decision
pursue
goals
fisher
supra
slip
university
proposal
written
following
study
concluded
use
policies
programs
ha
successful
provid
ing
educational
setting
fosters
understanding
provid
ing
enlightened
discussion
learning
prepar
ing
students
function
increasingly
diverse
workforce
society
supp
app
see
also
app
walker
aff
describing
thoughtful
review
university
undertook
faced
important
decision
whether
use
race
admissions
process
support
university
conclusion
found
depositions
affidavits
various
admissions
officers
articulate
consistent
reasoned
principled
explanation
see
ishop
dep
walker
dep
defendant
statement
facts
walker
aff
petitioner
contention
university
goal
insufficiently
concrete
rebutted
record
second
petitioner
argues
university
need
consider
race
already
achieved
critical
mass
using
top
ten
percent
plan
holistic
review
brief
petitioner
petitioner
correct
university
bears
heavy
burden
showing
obtained
educational
benefits
diversity
turned
plan
record
reveals
however
time
petitioner
application
university
faulted
score
changing
policy
university
conducted
months
study
deliberation
including
retreats
interviews
review
data
app
concluded
use
policies
programs
ha
successful
achieving
sufficient
racial
diversity
university
supp
app
stage
litigation
petitioner
challenged
university
good
faith
conducting
studies
properly
declines
consider
extrarecord
materials
dissent
relies
upon
many
tangential
case
best
none
university
full
opportunity
respond
see
post
opinion
alito
describing
report
regarding
admission
applicants
related
politically
connected
individuals
record
contains
significant
evidence
statistical
anecdotal
support
university
position
start
demographic
data
university
submitted
show
consistent
stagnation
terms
percentage
minority
students
enrolling
university
example
freshmen
enrolled
total
constituted
percent
incoming
class
year
grutter
decided
students
enrolled
percent
incoming
class
numbers
hispanic
students
tell
similar
story
see
supp
app
although
demographics
alone
means
dispositive
value
gauge
university
ability
enroll
students
offer
underrepresented
perspectives
addition
broad
demographic
data
university
put
forward
evidence
minority
students
admitted
hopwood
regime
experienced
feelings
loneliness
isolation
see
app
anecdotal
evidence
turn
bolstered
nuanced
quantitative
data
percent
undergraduate
classes
least
five
students
students
enrolled
percent
one
student
supp
app
words
percent
undergraduate
classes
five
students
one
student
enrolled
twelve
percent
classes
hispanic
students
compared
percent
though
college
must
continually
reassess
need
review
assessment
appears
done
care
reasonable
determination
made
university
yet
attained
goals
third
petitioner
argues
considering
race
necessary
consideration
impact
advancing
university
compelling
interest
brief
petitioner
see
also
tr
oral
arg
record
support
assertion
percent
texas
residents
enrolled
holistic
review
hispanic
percent
supp
app
contrast
percent
texas
freshmen
hispanic
percent
ibid
increases
percent
percent
respectively
show
consideration
race
meaningful
still
limited
effect
diversity
university
freshman
class
event
failure
narrow
tailoring
impact
racial
consideration
minor
fact
race
consciousness
played
role
small
portion
admissions
decisions
hallmark
narrow
tailoring
evidence
unconstitutionality
petitioner
final
argument
numerous
available
means
achieving
university
compelling
interest
brief
petitioner
review
record
reveals
however
time
petitioner
application
none
proposed
alternatives
workable
means
university
attain
benefits
diversity
sought
example
petitioner
suggests
university
intensify
outreach
efforts
hispanic
applicants
university
submitted
extensive
evidence
many
ways
already
intensified
outreach
efforts
students
university
created
three
new
scholarship
programs
opened
new
regional
admissions
centers
increased
recruitment
budget
dollars
organized
recruitment
events
supp
app
app
citing
affidavit
michael
orr
perhaps
significantly
wake
hopwood
university
spent
seven
years
attempting
achieve
compelling
interest
using
holistic
review
none
efforts
succeeded
petitioner
fails
offer
meaningful
way
university
improved
upon
time
application
petitioner
also
suggests
altering
weight
given
academic
socioeconomic
factors
university
admissions
calculus
proposal
ignores
fact
university
tried
failed
increase
diversity
enhanced
consideration
socioeconomic
factors
ignores
precedent
making
clear
equal
protection
clause
force
universities
choose
diverse
student
body
reputation
academic
excellence
grutter
petitioner
final
suggestion
uncap
top
ten
percent
plan
admit
university
students
percentage
plan
initial
matter
petitioner
overlooks
fact
top
ten
percent
plan
though
facially
neutral
understood
apart
basic
purpose
boost
minority
enrollment
percentage
plans
adopted
racially
segregated
neighborhoods
schools
front
center
stage
fisher
ginsburg
dissenting
slip
race
consciousness
blindness
race
drives
plans
ibid
consequently
petitioner
assert
simply
increasing
university
reliance
percentage
plan
make
admissions
policy
race
neutral
even
matter
raw
numbers
minority
enrollment
increase
regime
petitioner
find
convincing
support
proposition
college
admissions
improved
function
class
rank
alone
approach
sacrifice
aspects
diversity
pursuit
enrolling
higher
number
minority
students
system
selected
every
student
class
rank
alone
exclude
star
athlete
musician
whose
grades
suffered
daily
practices
training
exclude
talented
young
biologist
struggled
maintain
grades
humanities
classes
exclude
student
whose
grades
poor
family
crisis
got
back
track
last
three
years
school
find
outside
top
decile
class
examples
general
problem
class
rank
single
metric
like
single
metric
capture
certain
types
people
miss
others
imply
students
admitted
holistic
review
necessarily
capable
desirable
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
merely
reflects
fact
privileging
one
characteristic
others
lead
diverse
student
body
indeed
compel
universities
admit
students
based
class
rank
alone
deep
tension
goal
educational
diversity
cases
defined
see
grutter
supra
explaining
percentage
plans
may
preclude
university
conducting
individualized
assessments
necessary
assemble
student
body
racially
diverse
diverse
along
qualities
valued
university
pointing
top
ten
percent
law
leaves
students
fell
outside
high
school
top
ten
percent
excelled
unique
ways
enrich
diversity
university
educational
experience
leaves
gap
admissions
process
seeking
create
diversity
regents
univ
cal
bakke
envisions
center
top
ten
percent
plan
blunt
instrument
may
well
compromise
university
definition
diversity
seeks
addition
fundamental
problems
admissions
policy
relies
exclusively
class
rank
creates
perverse
incentives
applicants
percentage
plans
encourage
parents
keep
children
segregated
schools
discourage
students
taking
challenging
classes
might
lower
grade
point
averages
gratz
ginsburg
dissenting
reasons
although
may
true
top
ten
percent
plan
instances
may
provide
path
poverty
excel
schools
lacking
resources
plan
serve
admissions
solution
petitioner
suggests
wherever
balance
percentage
plans
holistic
review
rest
effective
admissions
policy
prescribe
realistically
exclusive
use
percentage
plan
short
none
petitioner
suggested
alternatives
proposals
considered
discussed
course
litigation
shown
available
workable
means
university
met
educational
goals
understood
defined
fisher
supra
slip
university
thus
met
burden
showing
admissions
policy
used
time
rejected
petitioner
application
narrowly
tailored
university
large
part
defined
intangible
qualities
incapable
objective
measurement
make
greatness
sweatt
painter
considerable
deference
owed
university
defining
intangible
characteristics
like
student
body
diversity
central
identity
educational
mission
still
remains
enduring
challenge
nation
education
system
reconcile
pursuit
diversity
constitutional
promise
equal
treatment
dignity
striking
sensitive
balance
public
universities
like
serve
laboratories
experimentation
lopez
kennedy
concurring
see
also
new
state
ice
liebmann
brandeis
dissenting
university
texas
austin
special
opportunity
learn
teach
university
disposal
valuable
data
manner
different
approaches
admissions
may
foster
diversity
instead
dilute
university
must
continue
use
data
scrutinize
fairness
admissions
program
assess
whether
changing
demographics
undermined
need
policy
identify
effects
positive
negative
measures
deems
necessary
affirmance
university
admissions
policy
today
necessarily
mean
university
may
rely
policy
without
refinement
university
ongoing
obligation
engage
constant
deliberation
continued
reflection
regarding
admissions
policies
judgment
appeals
affirmed
ordered
justice
kagan
took
part
consideration
decision
case
thomas
dissenting
abigail
noel
fisher
petitioner
university
texas
austin
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
june
justice
thomas
dissenting
join
justice
alito
dissent
justice
alito
explains
decision
today
irreconcilable
strict
scrutiny
rests
pernicious
assumptions
race
departs
many
precedents
write
separately
reaffirm
state
use
race
higher
education
admissions
decisions
categorically
prohibited
equal
protection
clause
fisher
university
tex
austin
thomas
concurring
slip
constitution
abhors
classifications
based
race
every
time
government
places
citizens
racial
registers
makes
race
relevant
provision
burdens
benefits
demeans
us
slip
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
constitutional
imperative
change
face
faddish
theor
racial
discrimination
may
produce
educational
benefits
slip
wrong
hold
otherwise
grutter
bollinger
overrule
grutter
reverse
fifth
circuit
judgment
alito
dissenting
abigail
noel
fisher
petitioner
university
texas
austin
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
june
justice
alito
chief
justice
justice
thomas
join
dissenting
something
strange
happened
since
prior
decision
case
see
fisher
university
tex
austin
fisher
decision
held
strict
scrutiny
requires
university
texas
austin
ut
university
show
use
race
ethnicity
making
admissions
decisions
serves
compelling
interests
plan
narrowly
tailored
achieve
ends
rejecting
argument
defer
ut
judgment
matters
made
clear
ut
obligated
identify
interests
justifying
plan
enough
specificity
permit
reviewing
determine
whether
requirements
strict
scrutiny
met
show
requirements
fact
satisfied
remand
ut
failed
prior
decision
demanded
university
still
identified
degree
specificity
interests
use
race
ethnicity
supposed
serve
primary
argument
merely
invoking
educational
benefits
diversity
sufficient
need
identify
metric
allow
determine
whether
plan
needed
serve
actually
serving
interests
nothing
less
plea
deference
emphatically
rejected
prior
decision
today
however
inexplicably
grants
request
extent
ut
ever
moved
beyond
plea
deference
identified
relevant
interests
specific
terms
efforts
shifting
unpersuasive
times
less
candid
adopted
plan
ut
said
plan
needed
promote
classroom
diversity
see
supp
app
app
pointed
study
showing
hispanic
students
underrepresented
many
classes
see
supp
app
ut
never
shown
plan
actually
ameliorates
situation
university
presents
evidence
admissions
officers
administering
holistic
component
plan
make
effort
determine
whether
hispanic
student
likely
enroll
classes
minority
students
underrepresented
although
ut
records
permit
determine
without
much
difficulty
whether
holistic
admittees
likely
students
admitted
top
ten
percent
law
tex
educ
code
ann
west
cum
supp
enroll
classes
lacking
racial
ethnic
diversity
ut
either
crunched
numbers
revealed
show
ut
explained
underrepresentation
students
many
classes
justifies
plan
discriminates
students
times
ut
claimed
plan
needed
achieve
critical
mass
hispanic
students
never
explained
term
means
according
ut
critical
mass
neither
absolute
number
hispanic
students
percentage
hispanics
general
population
state
term
remains
undefined
ut
tells
us
let
courts
know
desired
end
achieved
see
app
plea
deference
indeed
blind
deference
thing
rejected
fisher
ut
also
claimed
times
component
plan
needed
top
ten
percent
plan
admits
wrong
kind
hispanic
students
namely
students
poor
families
attend
schools
student
body
predominantly
hispanic
ut
put
brief
fisher
component
admissions
plan
needed
admit
hispanic
child
successful
professionals
dallas
brief
respondents
making
argument
first
trip
ut
apparently
second
thoughts
latest
round
briefing
ut
attempted
disavow
ever
made
argument
see
brief
respondents
petitioner
argument
ut
interest
favoring
minorities
fabrication
see
also
argument
turns
affirmative
action
head
programs
created
help
disadvantaged
students
although
ut
disowns
argument
top
ten
percent
plan
results
admission
wrong
kind
hispanic
students
fifth
circuit
majority
bought
version
claim
panel
majority
put
top
ten
hispanic
admittees
match
holistic
hispanic
admittees
comes
records
personal
achievement
variety
perspectives
life
experiences
unique
skills
according
panel
majority
top
ten
percent
students
enrich
diversity
student
body
way
holistic
admittees
judge
garza
put
dissent
panel
majority
concluded
top
ten
percent
admittees
somehow
homogenous
less
dynamic
undesirably
stereotypical
admitted
holistic
review
garza
dissenting
fifth
circuit
reached
conclusion
little
direct
evidence
regarding
characteristics
top
ten
percent
holistic
admittees
instead
assumption
behind
fifth
circuit
reasoning
hispanic
students
admitted
component
ut
plan
able
rank
top
decile
high
school
classes
compete
white
students
insulting
stereotype
supported
record
hispanic
students
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
receive
higher
college
grades
hispanic
students
admitted
program
see
supp
app
necessary
us
grant
review
second
time
case
greater
desire
majority
see
case
drag
need
happen
ut
decided
adopt
plan
every
reason
know
plan
satisfy
strict
scrutiny
meant
burden
show
plan
narrowly
tailored
serve
compelling
interests
ut
failed
make
showing
rights
judgment
entered
favor
petitioner
majority
determined
give
ut
yet
another
chance
reverse
send
case
back
district
majority
done
awarding
victory
ut
opinion
fails
address
important
issues
case
simply
wrong
past
years
ut
frequently
modified
admissions
policies
generally
employed
race
ethnicity
aggressive
manner
permitted
controlling
precedent
race
considered
directly
part
general
admissions
process
frequently
controlling
factor
admissions
based
two
criteria
applicant
academic
index
ai
computed
standardized
test
scores
high
school
class
rank
applicant
race
last
year
system
place
enrolled
freshmen
hispanic
supp
app
fifth
circuit
decision
hopwood
texas
prohibited
ut
using
race
admissions
response
hopwood
beginning
admissions
cycle
ut
instituted
holistic
review
process
considered
applicant
ai
well
personal
achievement
index
pai
intended
among
things
increase
minority
enrollment
pai
composite
scores
two
essays
personal
achievement
score
turn
based
holistic
review
applicant
leadership
qualities
extracurricular
activities
honors
awards
work
experience
community
service
special
circumstances
special
consideration
given
applicants
poor
families
applicants
homes
language
english
customarily
spoken
applicants
households
plan
gave
preference
disadvantaged
students
effect
disproportionately
benefiting
minority
candidates
supp
wd
tex
texas
legislature
also
responded
hopwood
enacted
top
ten
percent
plan
mandated
ut
admit
texas
seniors
rank
top
high
school
classes
facially
law
served
equalize
competition
students
live
relatively
affluent
areas
superior
schools
students
poorer
areas
served
schools
offering
fewer
opportunities
academic
excellence
benefiting
students
latter
group
plan
like
holistic
plan
already
adopted
ut
tended
benefit
hispanic
students
often
trapped
inferior
public
schools
starting
top
ten
percent
plan
took
effect
ut
holistic
system
continued
used
fill
seats
entering
class
taken
top
ten
percent
students
system
also
used
determine
program
placement
incoming
students
including
top
ten
percent
students
university
revised
admissions
process
coupled
operation
top
ten
percent
law
resulted
racially
diverse
environment
university
fisher
slip
ut
announced
enrollment
levels
african
american
hispanic
freshmen
returned
year
hopwood
decision
prohibited
consideration
race
admissions
policies
app
see
also
supp
app
diversity
levels
restored
app
percent
law
working
texas
enabled
us
diversify
enrollment
ut
austin
talented
students
succeed
ut
proclaimed
effectively
compensated
loss
affirmative
action
see
also
diversity
efforts
university
texas
austin
brought
higher
number
freshman
minority
students
african
americans
hispanics
campus
enrolled
year
ruling
ended
use
affirmative
action
university
enrollment
process
last
year
holistic
system
ut
entering
class
hispanic
supp
app
entering
class
thus
higher
percentage
hispanics
class
entered
ut
last
employed
racial
preferences
notwithstanding
lauded
results
ut
leapt
opportunity
reinsert
race
process
june
decided
grutter
bollinger
upheld
university
michigan
law
school
admissions
system
grutter
warned
university
contemplating
consideration
race
part
admissions
process
must
engage
serious
good
faith
consideration
workable
alternatives
achieve
diversity
university
seeks
nevertheless
day
grutter
handed
ut
president
announced
university
texas
austin
modify
admissions
procedures
light
grutter
including
implementing
procedures
undergraduate
level
combine
benefits
top
percent
law
affirmative
action
programs
app
emphasis
added
ut
purports
later
engaged
almost
year
deliberations
evidence
reintroduction
race
admissions
process
anything
foregone
conclusion
following
president
announcement
university
plan
resume
admissions
given
formal
expression
june
internal
document
entitled
proposal
consider
race
ethnicity
admissions
proposal
fisher
supra
slip
proposal
stated
ut
needed
admissions
yet
achieved
critical
mass
racial
diversity
supp
app
support
claim
ut
cited
two
pieces
evidence
first
noted
significant
differences
racial
ethnic
makeup
university
undergraduate
population
state
population
second
proposal
relied
substantial
part
fisher
supra
slip
study
subset
undergraduate
classes
containing
least
five
students
see
supp
app
study
showed
among
select
classes
five
students
hispanics
ibid
moreover
study
showed
classes
two
two
two
hispanics
see
ibid
based
study
proposal
concluded
ut
reached
critical
mass
classroom
level
proposal
analyze
backgrounds
life
experiences
leadership
qualities
awards
extracurricular
activities
community
service
personal
attributes
characteristics
minority
students
already
admitted
ut
holistic
process
implement
proposal
university
included
student
race
component
pai
score
beginning
applicants
fall
fisher
slip
university
asks
students
classify
among
five
predefined
racial
categories
application
ibid
race
assigned
explicit
numerical
value
undisputed
race
meaningful
factor
ibid
ut
decided
use
racial
preferences
benefit
hispanic
students
considers
groups
underrepresented
minorities
supp
app
see
also
app
defining
underrepresented
minorities
hispanic
african
americans
even
though
ut
classroom
study
showed
classes
lacked
students
lacked
hispanic
students
supp
app
ut
deemed
overrepresented
based
state
demographics
supp
see
also
ibid
undisputed
ut
considers
hispanics
underrepresented
consider
underrepresented
although
ut
claims
race
factor
factor
factor
factor
ut
acknowledges
race
one
holistic
factors
appears
cover
every
application
tr
oral
arg
applicant
race
identified
front
admissions
file
reviewers
aware
throughout
evaluation
supp
see
also
candidate
race
known
throughout
application
process
consideration
race
therefore
pervades
every
aspect
ut
admissions
process
see
app
certainly
aware
applicant
race
front
page
application
read
used
context
everything
else
part
applicant
file
design
ut
considers
use
racial
classifications
benign
form
social
engineering
powers
schools
still
need
affirmative
action
national
editorial
bill
powers
president
ut
opponents
accuse
defenders
admissions
favor
engineering
believe
reply
notwithstanding
omnipresence
racial
classifications
ut
claims
keeps
record
classifications
affect
process
university
keep
statistics
many
students
affected
consideration
race
admissions
decisions
know
many
minority
students
affected
positive
manner
consideration
race
app
according
ut
way
making
determinations
see
ut
says
tell
admissions
officers
much
weight
give
race
see
deposition
gary
lavergne
record
wd
tex
doc
lavergne
deposition
influence
race
always
contextual
ut
claims
provide
even
single
example
instance
race
impacted
student
odds
admission
see
app
give
example
race
impact
applicant
personal
achievement
score
honest
really
impossible
say
give
example
particular
student
contextual
accordingly
ut
asserts
idea
students
admitted
result
system
students
admitted
process
ut
thus
makes
effort
assess
individual
characteristics
students
admitted
result
racial
preferences
differ
differ
students
admitted
without
ii
ut
admissions
program
satisfy
strict
scrutiny
ut
says
program
furthers
interest
educational
benefits
diversity
failed
define
interest
clarity
demonstrate
program
narrowly
tailored
achieve
particular
interest
accepting
ut
rationales
sufficient
meet
burden
majority
licenses
ut
perverse
assumptions
different
groups
minority
students
precise
assumptions
strict
scrutiny
supposed
stamp
moral
imperative
racial
neutrality
driving
force
equal
protection
clause
richmond
croson
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
heart
constitution
guarantee
equal
protection
lies
simple
command
government
must
treat
citizens
individuals
simply
components
racial
religious
sexual
national
class
miller
johnson
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
assignments
embody
stereotypes
treat
individuals
product
race
evaluating
thoughts
efforts
worth
citizens
according
criterion
barred
government
history
constitution
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
given
constitutional
commitment
doctrine
equality
istinctions
citizens
solely
ancestry
nature
odious
free
people
rice
cayetano
quoting
hirabayashi
ecause
racial
characteristics
seldom
provide
relevant
basis
disparate
treatment
equal
protection
clause
demands
racial
classifications
subjected
rigid
scrutiny
fisher
slip
internal
quotation
marks
citations
omitted
udicial
review
must
begin
position
official
action
treats
person
differently
account
race
ethnic
origin
inherently
suspect
ibid
see
also
grutter
kennedy
dissenting
ethnic
distinctions
sort
inherently
suspect
thus
call
exacting
judicial
strict
scrutiny
use
race
must
necessary
compelling
governmental
interest
means
employed
must
tailored
accomplish
compelling
interest
higher
education
dynamic
change
standard
fisher
supra
slip
racial
discrimination
invidious
contexts
edmonson
leesville
concrete
analysis
level
scrutiny
applied
determine
validity
racial
classification
vary
simply
objective
appears
acceptable
fisher
supra
slip
standard
review
race
burdened
benefited
particular
classification
gratz
bollinger
quoting
adarand
constructors
peña
see
also
miller
supra
rule
obtains
equal
force
regardless
race
burdened
benefited
particular
quoting
croson
supra
plurality
opinion
thus
person
whatever
race
right
demand
governmental
actor
subject
constitution
justify
racial
classification
subjecting
person
unequal
treatment
strictest
judicial
scrutiny
gratz
supra
quoting
adarand
supra
short
contexts
edmonson
supra
racial
classifications
permitted
last
resort
else
failed
croson
supra
opinion
kennedy
strict
scrutiny
searching
examination
government
bears
burden
proof
fisher
slip
meet
burden
government
must
demonstrate
clarity
interest
constitutionally
permissible
substantial
use
classification
necessary
accomplishment
purpose
slip
emphasis
added
ut
failed
define
interest
using
racial
preferences
clarity
result
narrow
tailoring
inquiry
impossible
ut
satisfy
strict
scrutiny
ut
adopted
challenged
policy
characterized
compelling
interest
obtaining
underrepresented
minorities
slip
proposal
claimed
use
policies
programs
successful
achieving
critical
mass
racial
diversity
supp
app
see
fisher
university
tex
austin
proposal
explained
ut
yet
achieved
critical
mass
underrepresented
minority
students
needed
obtain
full
educational
benefits
diversity
day
ut
explained
anything
vaguest
terms
means
critical
mass
fact
ut
argues
need
identify
interest
specific
securing
educational
benefits
diversity
brief
respondents
ut
insisted
critical
mass
absolute
number
see
tr
oral
arg
declaring
ut
working
toward
particular
number
hispanic
students
app
confirming
ut
defined
critical
mass
number
projected
attain
critical
mass
instead
ut
prefers
deliberately
malleable
know
see
notion
critical
mass
defines
critical
mass
adequate
representation
minority
students
educational
benefits
derived
diversity
actually
happen
declares
know
reached
critical
mass
see
educational
benefits
happening
words
trust
us
intentionally
imprecise
interest
designed
insulate
ut
program
meaningful
judicial
review
judge
garza
explained
meet
narrow
tailoring
burden
university
must
explain
goal
us
meaningful
way
undertake
rigorous
narrow
tailoring
analysis
university
define
ends
tell
whether
admissions
program
closely
university
goal
fails
objectively
articulate
goal
determine
whether
considering
race
necessary
university
achieve
mass
whether
effective
alternatives
described
mass
requires
dissenting
opinion
indeed
without
knowing
reasonably
specific
terms
critical
mass
measured
reviewing
conduct
requisite
careful
judicial
inquiry
whether
use
race
fisher
supra
slip
sure
agree
majority
precedents
require
ut
pinpoint
interest
enrolling
certain
number
minority
students
ante
order
us
assess
whether
ut
program
narrowly
tailored
university
must
identify
sort
concrete
interest
classifying
assigning
students
according
race
requires
amorphous
end
justify
parents
involved
community
schools
seattle
school
dist
ut
failed
explain
clarity
fisher
supra
slip
needs
policy
know
goals
met
narrow
tailoring
analysis
meaningfully
conducted
ut
therefore
satisfy
strict
scrutiny
majority
acknowledges
asserting
interest
educational
benefits
diversity
writ
large
insufficient
university
goals
elusory
amorphous
must
sufficiently
measurable
permit
judicial
scrutiny
policies
adopted
reach
ante
according
majority
however
ut
articulated
following
concrete
precise
goals
destruction
stereotypes
promot
ion
understanding
preparation
student
body
increasingly
diverse
workforce
society
cultivat
ion
set
leaders
legitimacy
eyes
citizenry
ibid
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
laudable
goals
concrete
precise
offer
limiting
principle
use
racial
preferences
instance
ever
able
determine
whether
stereotypes
adequately
destroyed
whether
understanding
adequately
achieved
university
justify
racial
discrimination
simply
employees
opine
racial
preferences
necessary
accomplish
nebulous
goals
see
ante
citing
statements
ut
officials
narrow
tailoring
inquiry
meaningless
courts
required
defer
judgment
university
administrators
policies
completely
insulated
judicial
review
accepting
amorphous
goals
sufficient
ut
carry
burden
majority
violates
decades
precedent
rejecting
blind
deference
government
officials
defending
classifications
miller
citing
regents
univ
cal
bakke
opinion
powell
see
also
miller
supra
presumptive
skepticism
racial
classifications
prohibits
us
accepting
face
justice
department
conclusion
citation
omitted
croson
mere
recitation
legitimate
purpose
racial
classification
entitled
little
weight
history
racial
classifications
country
suggests
blind
judicial
deference
legislative
executive
pronouncements
necessity
place
equal
protection
analysis
troublingly
majority
uncritical
deference
ut
claims
blatantly
contradicts
decision
prior
iteration
case
faulted
fifth
circuit
improperly
deferring
university
good
faith
use
racial
classifications
fisher
slip
emphasized
three
years
ago
precedent
kes
clear
courts
university
administrators
ensure
admissions
process
narrowly
tailored
slip
ensure
admissions
process
narrowly
tailored
pin
goals
process
designed
achieve
ut
vague
policy
goals
broad
imprecise
withstand
strict
scrutiny
parents
involved
supra
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
although
ut
primary
argument
need
point
interest
specific
educational
benefits
diversity
brief
respondents
various
points
litigation
identified
four
specific
goals
demographic
parity
classroom
diversity
intraracial
diversity
avoiding
racial
isolation
neither
ut
majority
demonstrated
four
goals
provides
sufficient
basis
satisfying
strict
scrutiny
ut
arguments
contrary
depend
series
invidious
assumptions
first
ut
majority
cite
demographic
data
evidence
hispanic
students
underrepresented
ut
racial
preferences
necessary
compensate
underrepresentation
see
supp
app
ante
neither
ut
majority
clear
relationship
texas
demographics
ut
interest
obtaining
critical
mass
critical
mass
depend
relative
size
particular
group
population
state
example
critical
mass
hispanics
texas
population
hispanics
different
critical
mass
neighboring
new
mexico
population
much
smaller
hispanic
population
constitutes
higher
percentage
state
total
see
census
bureau
quickfacts
online
https
internet
materials
last
visited
june
ut
answer
question
veered
back
forth
oral
argument
fisher
ut
lawyer
indicated
critical
mass
vary
group
group
state
state
see
tr
oral
arg
ut
initially
justified
plan
least
part
ground
significant
differences
racial
ethnic
makeup
university
undergraduate
population
state
population
prevent
university
fully
achieving
mission
supp
app
see
also
critical
mass
texas
necessarily
larger
critical
mass
michigan
majority
population
texas
african
american
hispanic
fisher
concluding
ut
reliance
texas
demographics
reflects
measured
attention
community
serves
brief
respondents
noting
critical
mass
may
hinge
part
communities
universities
serve
ut
extensive
reliance
state
demographics
also
revealed
substantial
focus
increasing
representation
hispanics
see
supp
supp
app
app
hispanics
underrepresented
ut
compared
demographics
hand
ut
counsel
asserted
critical
mass
university
dependent
demographics
texas
ut
concept
critical
mass
tied
demographic
tr
oral
arg
ut
fisher
brief
expressly
agreed
university
look
racial
demographics
work
backward
admissions
process
meet
target
tied
demographics
brief
respondents
see
also
brief
respondents
disclaiming
interest
demographic
parity
extent
ut
pursuing
parity
texas
demographics
nothing
outright
racial
balancing
time
held
patently
unconstitutional
fisher
slip
see
grutter
utright
racial
balancing
patently
unconstitutional
freeman
pitts
racial
balance
achieved
sake
croson
rejecting
goal
outright
racial
balancing
bakke
opinion
powell
petitioner
purpose
assure
within
student
body
specified
percentage
particular
group
merely
race
ethnic
origin
preferential
purpose
must
rejected
facially
invalid
interest
linked
nothing
proportional
representation
various
races
support
indefinite
use
racial
classifications
employed
first
obtain
appropriate
mixture
racial
views
ensure
program
continues
reflect
mixture
metro
broadcasting
fcc
dissenting
held
fisher
acial
balancing
transformed
patently
unconstitutional
compelling
state
interest
simply
relabeling
racial
diversity
slip
quoting
parents
involved
record
demonstrates
pitfalls
inherent
racial
balancing
although
ut
claims
interest
educational
benefits
diversity
appears
paid
little
attention
anything
number
minority
students
campus
classrooms
ut
proposal
illustrates
approach
repeatedly
citing
numerical
assessments
racial
makeup
student
body
various
classes
justification
adopting
plan
see
supp
app
instead
focusing
benefits
diversity
ut
seems
resorted
simple
racial
census
majority
part
claims
lthough
demographics
alone
means
dispositive
value
gauge
university
ability
enroll
students
offer
underrepresented
perspectives
ante
even
ut
merely
view
demographic
disparity
cause
concern
brief
amicus
curiae
seeking
reduce
rather
eliminate
disparity
undefined
goal
properly
subjected
strict
scrutiny
case
simply
way
know
specific
demographic
interest
ut
pursuing
alternative
achieve
interest
demographic
goal
satisfied
demographic
discrepancy
serve
gauge
justifies
use
racial
discrimination
ante
racial
discrimination
justified
basis
demographic
parity
reached
logical
stopping
point
short
patently
unconstitutional
racial
balancing
demographic
disparities
thus
used
satisfy
strict
scrutiny
see
croson
supra
rejecting
municipality
assertion
racial
program
justified
light
past
discrimination
assertion
logical
stopping
continue
percentage
government
contracts
awarded
minorities
mirrored
percentage
minorities
population
whole
wygant
jackson
bd
plurality
opinion
rejecting
government
asserted
interest
logical
stopping
point
major
explanation
ut
offered
proposal
desire
promote
classroom
diversity
proposal
stressed
ut
reached
critical
mass
classroom
level
supp
app
emphasis
added
see
also
app
support
proposition
ut
relied
study
select
classes
containing
five
students
noted
study
indicated
classes
hispanics
supp
app
study
suggested
classes
two
two
two
hispanics
see
ibid
based
study
ut
concluded
compelling
educational
interest
employing
racial
preferences
ensure
large
numbers
classes
students
single
student
given
underrepresented
race
ethnicity
ut
equivocates
disclaiming
discrete
interest
classroom
diversity
see
brief
respondents
instead
ut
taken
position
lack
classroom
diversity
merely
red
flag
ut
yet
fully
realized
constitutionally
permissible
educational
benefits
diversity
brief
respondents
ut
failed
identify
level
classroom
diversity
deems
sufficient
making
impossible
apply
strict
reviewing
determine
whether
ut
program
necessary
remove
red
flag
without
understanding
precise
nature
goal
knowing
red
flag
considered
disappeared
putting
aside
ut
effective
abandonment
interest
classroom
diversity
evidence
cited
support
interest
woefully
insufficient
show
ut
plan
necessary
achieve
educational
benefits
diverse
student
body
far
record
shows
ut
failed
even
scratch
surface
available
data
reflexively
resorting
racial
preferences
instance
ut
knows
students
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
well
students
enrolled
classes
seem
relatively
easy
determine
whether
top
ten
percent
students
less
likely
holistic
admittees
enroll
types
classes
diversity
lacking
ut
never
bothered
figure
see
ante
acknowledging
ut
submitted
evidence
regarding
students
admitted
solely
based
class
rank
differ
contribution
diversity
students
admitted
holistic
review
indication
ut
instructed
admissions
officers
search
hispanic
applicants
fill
particular
gaps
classroom
level
given
ut
failure
present
evidence
demonstrated
policy
promote
classroom
diversity
better
options
expanding
top
ten
percent
plan
using
holistic
admissions
moreover
ut
truly
seeking
expose
students
diversity
ideas
perspectives
policy
poorly
tailored
serve
end
ut
study
majority
touts
best
nuanced
quantitative
data
supporting
ut
position
ante
demonstrated
classroom
diversity
lacking
students
classified
classified
hispanic
supp
app
ut
plan
discriminates
ut
apparently
unconcerned
may
made
feel
isolated
may
seen
race
ethnicity
see
unless
university
engaged
unconstitutional
racial
balancing
based
texas
demographics
hispanics
outnumber
see
part
supra
seemingly
views
classroom
contributions
students
less
valuable
hispanic
students
ut
view
apparently
asian
americans
worth
much
hispanics
promoting
understanding
breaking
stereotypes
enabling
students
understand
persons
different
races
brief
asian
american
legal
foundation
et
al
amici
curiae
representing
organizations
majority
opinion
effectively
endorses
view
crediting
ut
reliance
classroom
study
proof
university
assessed
need
racial
discrimination
including
racial
discrimination
undeniably
harms
care
ante
majority
fifth
circuit
rely
ut
classroom
study
see
ante
completely
ignore
finding
hispanics
better
represented
ut
classrooms
fact
act
almost
students
exist
see
ante
mentioning
single
time
outside
parentheticals
context
classroom
study
mentioning
single
time
district
acknowledged
impact
ut
policy
students
brushed
aside
impact
concluding
astoundingly
ut
pick
choose
racial
ethnic
groups
like
favor
according
district
nothing
grutter
requires
university
give
equal
preference
every
minority
group
ut
allowed
exercise
discretion
determining
minority
groups
benefit
consideration
race
supp
reasoning
majority
implicitly
accepts
blessing
ut
reliance
classroom
study
places
tortuous
path
decid
ing
races
favor
metro
broadcasting
kennedy
dissenting
willingness
allow
discrimination
individuals
asian
descent
ut
admissions
particularly
troubling
light
long
history
discrimination
asian
americans
especially
education
brief
asian
american
legal
foundation
et
al
amici
curiae
see
also
discussing
placement
public
schools
gong
lum
rice
holding
girl
denied
entry
white
school
member
mongolian
yellow
race
sum
hile
repeatedly
refers
preferences
favoring
must
emphasized
discriminatory
policies
upheld
today
operate
exclude
students
made
ut
list
favored
groups
metro
broadcasting
supra
kennedy
dissenting
perhaps
majority
finds
discrimination
students
benign
since
overrepresented
ut
supp
istory
teach
greater
humility
metro
broadcasting
dissenting
enign
carries
independent
meaning
reflects
acceptance
current
generation
conclusion
politically
acceptable
burden
imposed
particular
citizens
basis
race
reasonable
government
provided
little
explanation
needs
discriminate
based
race
simply
way
determining
classifications
benign
classifications
fact
motivated
illegitimate
notions
racial
inferiority
simple
racial
politics
parents
involved
opinion
kennedy
quoting
croson
plurality
opinion
accepting
classroom
study
proof
ut
satisfied
strict
scrutiny
majority
move
us
equal
benign
metro
broadcasting
supra
kennedy
dissenting
addition
demonstrating
ut
discriminates
students
classroom
study
also
exhibits
ut
use
crude
overly
simplistic
racial
ethnic
categories
ut
plan
favored
disfavored
groups
broad
consist
students
enormously
diverse
backgrounds
see
supp
app
see
also
fisher
slip
five
predefined
racial
categories
rude
measures
sort
threaten
reduce
students
racial
chits
parents
involved
opinion
kennedy
ut
reliance
measures
undermines
claim
based
classroom
diversity
statistics
see
majority
opinion
criticizing
school
policies
viewed
race
rough
terms
opinion
kennedy
faulting
government
relying
crude
racial
categories
metro
broadcasting
supra
kennedy
dissenting
concluding
attempt
define
precision
beneficiary
qualifying
racial
characteristics
repugnant
constitutional
ideals
noting
government
make
serious
effort
define
racial
classes
criteria
administered
objectively
must
study
precedents
first
regulation
reichs
citizenship
law
november
example
students
labeled
asian
american
supp
app
seemingly
include
individuals
chinese
japanese
korean
vietnamese
cambodian
hmong
indian
backgrounds
comprising
roughly
world
population
brief
asian
american
legal
foundation
et
al
amici
curiae
ludicrous
suggest
students
similar
backgrounds
similar
ideas
experiences
share
ut
lumped
together
concluded
appropriate
discriminate
students
overrepresented
ut
student
body
ut
good
answer
ut
makes
effort
ensure
critical
mass
say
filipino
americans
cambodian
americans
tr
oral
arg
long
sufficient
number
asian
americans
ut
apparently
satisfied
ut
failure
provide
definition
various
racial
ethnic
groups
also
revealing
ut
specify
means
hispanic
asian
american
native
american
white
supp
app
ut
evidently
labels
student
falling
single
racial
ethnic
group
see
without
explaining
individuals
ancestors
different
groups
characterized
racial
ethnic
prejudice
recedes
students
parents
grandparents
fall
one
ut
five
groups
according
census
figures
individuals
describing
members
multiple
races
grew
recent
survey
reported
hispanics
marry
spouse
different
race
ut
crude
classification
system
ill
suited
integrated
country
rapidly
becoming
ut
assumes
applicant
describes
member
particular
race
ethnicity
applicant
perspective
differs
applicants
describe
members
different
groups
necessarily
applicant
one
grandparent
member
favored
group
enough
permit
ut
infer
student
classroom
contribution
reflect
distinctive
perspective
set
experiences
associated
group
ut
say
instead
relies
applicants
classify
fisher
slip
invitation
applicants
game
system
finally
seems
clear
lack
classroom
diversity
attributable
good
part
factors
representation
favored
groups
ut
student
population
ut
offers
enormous
number
classes
wide
range
subjects
gives
undergraduates
large
measure
freedom
choose
classes
ut
also
offers
courses
subjects
likely
special
appeal
members
minority
groups
given
preferential
treatment
challenged
plan
course
diminishes
number
courses
students
enroll
see
supp
app
indicating
representation
hispanics
ut
classrooms
varies
substantially
major
major
designed
undergraduate
program
virtually
ensures
lack
classroom
diversity
ut
poorly
positioned
argue
result
provides
justification
racial
ethnic
discrimination
constitution
rarely
allows
ut
purported
interest
intraracial
diversity
diversity
within
diversity
brief
respondents
also
falls
short
bottom
argument
relies
unsupported
assumption
something
deficient
least
radically
different
hispanic
students
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
throughout
litigation
ut
repeatedly
shifted
position
need
intraracial
diversity
initially
proposal
ut
rely
alleged
need
rather
proposal
examined
two
metrics
classroom
diversity
demographic
disparities
concluded
relevant
ability
provide
benefits
diversity
brief
amicus
curiae
metrics
looked
numbers
hispanics
diversity
within
group
appeal
fifth
circuit
fisher
however
ut
began
emphasize
intraracial
diversity
argument
ut
complained
top
ten
percent
law
hinders
efforts
assemble
broadly
diverse
class
minorities
admitted
law
drawn
largely
certain
areas
texas
schools
students
ut
argued
tend
come
poor
disadvantaged
families
university
prefer
system
gives
substantial
leeway
seek
broad
diversity
within
groups
underrepresented
minorities
particular
ut
asserted
need
hispanic
students
privileged
backgrounds
see
brief
respondents
explaining
ut
needs
admissions
order
admit
hispanic
child
successful
professionals
dallas
ibid
claiming
privileged
minorities
great
potential
serving
promoting
understanding
well
breaking
racial
stereotypes
ibid
intimating
underprivileged
minority
students
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
reinforc
stereotypical
assumptions
tr
oral
arg
lthough
percentage
plan
certainly
helps
minority
admissions
large
minorities
admitted
tend
come
segregated
schools
want
minorities
different
backgrounds
thus
top
ten
percent
law
faulted
admitting
wrong
kind
hispanic
students
fifth
circuit
embraced
argument
remand
endorsing
ut
claimed
need
enroll
minorities
high
schools
according
fifth
circuit
privileged
minorities
bring
perspective
captured
students
admitted
top
ten
percent
law
often
come
highly
segregated
underfunded
underperforming
schools
ibid
instance
determined
privileged
minorities
enrich
diversity
student
body
distinct
ways
students
higher
levels
preparation
better
prospects
admission
ut
austin
demanding
colleges
underprivileged
minorities
see
also
fisher
concluding
top
ten
percent
plan
widens
gap
minority
students
university
risks
driving
away
matriculating
minority
students
difficult
majors
like
business
sciences
remarkably
ut
contends
petitioner
fabricat
ed
argument
seeking
affluent
minorities
brief
respondents
claim
impossible
square
ut
prior
statements
briefing
oral
argument
fisher
moreover
although
ut
reframes
argument
continues
assert
needs
affirmative
action
admit
privileged
minorities
instance
ut
brief
highlights
interest
admitting
black
student
high
grades
andover
brief
respondents
similarly
oral
argument
ut
claimed
interests
educational
benefits
diversity
met
minority
students
coming
depressed
socioeconomic
backgrounds
tr
oral
arg
see
also
ultimately
ut
intraracial
diversity
rationale
relies
baseless
assumption
something
wrong
hispanic
students
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
racially
identifiable
schools
see
explaining
basis
ut
conclusion
getting
variety
perspectives
among
hispanics
fact
top
ten
percent
plan
admits
underprivileged
minorities
highly
segregated
schools
effect
ut
asks
assume
without
evidence
minorities
admitted
top
ten
percent
law
somehow
homogenous
less
dynamic
undesirably
stereotypical
admitted
holistic
review
garza
dissenting
ut
assumptions
appear
based
pernicious
stereotype
hispanics
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
got
compete
many
whites
see
tr
oral
arg
stereotypical
assumptions
equal
protection
clause
forbids
miller
ut
satisfy
burden
attempting
substitute
racial
stereotype
evidence
racial
prejudice
reason
calhoun
slip
sotomayor
respecting
denial
certiorari
addition
relying
stereotypes
ut
argument
needs
racial
preferences
admit
privileged
minorities
turns
concept
affirmative
action
head
affirmative
action
programs
first
adopted
purpose
helping
disadvantaged
see
bakke
opinion
powell
explaining
school
affirmative
action
program
designed
increase
representation
educationally
applicants
told
program
tends
admit
poor
disadvantaged
minority
students
inadequate
work
advantage
fortunate
affirmative
action
gone
wild
also
far
clear
ut
assumptions
socioeconomic
status
minorities
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
even
remotely
accurate
take
example
parental
education
petitioner
applied
ut
approximately
texans
aged
years
older
high
school
diploma
bachelor
degree
graduate
professional
degree
dept
nat
center
educ
statistics
snyder
dillow
digest
education
statistics
contrast
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
parent
high
school
diploma
parent
bachelor
degree
parent
graduate
professional
degree
see
ut
office
admissions
student
profile
admitted
freshman
class
rev
student
profile
online
https
com
similarly
hispanics
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
parent
high
school
diploma
parent
bachelor
degree
parent
graduate
professional
degree
ibid
statistics
make
plain
minorities
ut
characterizes
coming
depressed
socioeconomic
backgrounds
tr
oral
arg
generally
come
households
education
levels
exceeding
norm
texas
consider
income
levels
median
annual
household
income
texas
census
bureau
noss
household
income
online
https
household
income
levels
top
ten
percent
hispanic
admittees
par
roughly
half
admittees
came
households
texas
median
half
came
households
median
see
student
profile
large
portion
admittees
households
income
levels
far
exceeding
texas
median
specifically
hispanics
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
raised
households
incomes
exceeding
ibid
light
evidence
ut
actual
argument
needs
affirmative
action
ensure
minority
admittees
representative
state
texas
rather
ut
asserting
needs
affirmative
action
ensure
minority
students
disproportionally
come
families
wealthier
better
educated
average
texas
family
addition
using
socioeconomic
status
falsely
denigrate
minority
students
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
ut
also
argues
students
academically
inferior
see
brief
respondents
top
law
systematically
hinders
ut
efforts
assemble
class
academically
excellent
average
ut
claims
hispanic
holistic
admits
higher
sat
scores
top
counterparts
brief
respondents
result
ut
argues
needs
admissions
enroll
academically
superior
minority
students
higher
sat
scores
regrettably
majority
seems
embrace
argument
well
see
ante
equal
protection
clause
force
universities
choose
diverse
student
body
reputation
academic
excellence
argument
fails
number
reasons
first
simply
true
top
ten
percent
minority
admittees
academically
inferior
holistic
admittees
fact
ut
president
explained
top
percent
high
school
students
make
much
higher
grades
college
percent
students
trong
academic
performance
high
school
even
better
predictor
success
college
standardized
test
scores
app
see
also
lavergne
deposition
agreeing
generally
true
students
admitted
pursuant
hb
top
ten
percent
law
higher
level
academic
performance
university
students
admitted
outside
hb
indeed
statistics
record
reveal
year
freshmen
admitted
top
ten
percent
law
earned
higher
mean
grade
point
average
admitted
outside
top
ten
percent
law
supp
app
true
hispanic
students
conclusions
correspond
results
nationwide
studies
showing
high
school
grades
better
predictor
success
college
sat
also
little
ironic
ut
uses
sat
often
accused
reflecting
racial
cultural
reason
dissatisfaction
poor
disadvantaged
hispanic
students
excel
high
school
college
even
sat
reflect
bias
ill
equipped
express
view
subject
sat
scores
clearly
correlate
ut
certainly
compelling
interest
admitting
students
achieve
academic
success
follow
compelling
interest
maximizing
admittees
sat
scores
approximately
institutions
require
sat
act
part
admissions
process
see
soares
sat
wars
case
college
admissions
includes
many
excellent
extent
intraracial
diversity
refers
something
admitting
privileged
minorities
minorities
higher
sat
scores
ut
failed
define
interest
clarity
ut
provided
concrete
targets
admitting
minority
students
possessing
unique
characteristics
desires
garza
dissenting
ut
specified
characteristics
viewpoints
life
experiences
supposedly
lacking
hispanics
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
fact
ut
administrators
make
collective
qualitative
assessment
minorities
admitted
automatically
way
knowing
attributes
missing
see
ante
admitting
way
knowing
students
admitted
solely
based
class
rank
differ
contribution
diversity
students
admitted
holistic
review
garza
dissenting
university
assess
whether
top
ten
percent
law
admittees
exhibit
sufficient
diversity
within
diversity
whether
requisite
agents
among
whether
admittees
able
collectively
individually
combat
pernicious
stereotypes
furthermore
ut
identified
ever
goal
remains
undefined
qualitative
diversity
reached
ut
intraracial
diversity
rationale
thus
imprecise
permit
strict
scrutiny
analysis
finally
ut
shifting
positions
intraracial
diversity
fact
intraracial
diversity
emphasized
proposal
suggest
actual
purpose
underlying
discriminatory
classification
mississippi
univ
women
hogan
instead
appears
post
hoc
rationalization
ut
also
alleges
majority
embraces
interest
avoiding
feelings
loneliness
isolation
among
minority
students
ante
see
brief
respondents
support
argument
cite
demographic
data
anecdotal
statements
ut
officials
students
told
many
feel
isolated
vague
interest
possibly
satisfy
strict
scrutiny
ut
seeking
demographic
parity
avoid
isolation
impermissible
racial
balancing
see
part
supra
linking
racial
loneliness
isolation
state
demographics
illogical
imagine
example
student
attends
university
racial
isolation
depends
comparison
state
demographics
student
likely
feel
isolated
school
located
mississippi
located
montana
see
census
bureau
quickfacts
online
https
reality
however
student
may
feel
anything
less
isolated
mississippi
prevalent
population
large
hand
state
demographics
driving
ut
interest
avoiding
racial
isolation
treatment
students
hard
understand
district
noted
gross
number
hispanic
students
attending
ut
exceeds
gross
number
students
supp
example
ut
enrolled
hispanic
freshmen
freshmen
supp
app
ut
never
explains
hispanic
students
students
isolated
lonely
enough
receive
admissions
boost
notwithstanding
fact
hispanics
student
population
anecdotal
statements
ut
officials
certainly
indicate
hispanics
somehow
lonelier
ultimately
ut
failed
articulate
interest
preventing
racial
isolation
clarity
provided
clear
indication
know
isolation
longer
exists
like
ut
purported
interests
demographic
parity
classroom
diversity
intraracial
diversity
interest
avoiding
racial
isolation
justify
use
racial
preferences
even
assuming
ut
correct
grutter
need
cite
generic
interest
educational
benefits
diversity
plan
still
fails
strict
scrutiny
narrowly
tailored
narrow
tailoring
requires
careful
judicial
inquiry
whether
university
achieve
sufficient
diversity
without
using
racial
classifications
fisher
slip
nonracial
approach
promote
substantial
interest
well
tolerable
administrative
expense
university
may
consider
race
slip
citations
omitted
evidence
holistic
review
achieve
ut
goals
least
well
ut
policy
addition
ut
adopted
approaches
goals
intensifying
outreach
efforts
uncapping
top
ten
percent
law
placing
greater
weight
socioeconomic
factors
majority
argues
none
alternatives
workable
means
university
attain
benefits
diversity
sought
ante
tellingly
however
majority
devotes
single
conclusory
sentence
obvious
alternative
holistic
review
considers
applicant
unique
characteristics
personal
circumstances
see
system
combines
top
ten
percent
plan
holistic
review
ut
still
admit
star
athlete
musician
whose
grades
suffered
daily
practices
training
talented
young
biologist
struggled
maintain
grades
humanities
classes
student
whose
grades
poor
family
crisis
got
back
track
last
three
years
school
ante
unique
circumstances
considered
without
injecting
race
process
ut
failed
provide
evidence
whatsoever
holistic
review
achieve
diversity
objectives
effectively
holistic
review
satisfy
heavy
burden
imposed
strict
scrutiny
standard
fact
ut
racial
preferences
unnecessary
achieve
stated
goals
demonstrated
minimal
effect
ut
diversity
race
factor
ten
percent
texas
enrollees
hispanic
see
supp
app
stand
reason
least
percentages
hispanic
students
admitted
holistic
review
even
race
factor
assumption
correct
race
determinative
students
hispanic
students
representing
respectively
total
enrolled
freshmen
texas
high
schools
see
majority
contends
fact
race
consciousness
played
role
small
portion
admissions
decisions
hallmark
narrow
tailoring
evidence
unconstitutionality
ante
argument
directly
contradicts
precedent
racial
classifications
highly
suspect
tool
grutter
employed
last
resort
croson
opinion
kennedy
see
also
grutter
supra
acial
classifications
however
compelling
goals
potentially
dangerous
may
employed
broadly
interest
demands
racial
preferences
slight
impact
minority
enrollment
alternative
likely
reached
result
see
parents
involved
holding
minimal
effect
school
districts
racial
classifications
casts
doubt
necessity
using
classifications
suggests
means
achieving
objectives
effective
justice
kennedy
aptly
put
small
number
students
affected
suggests
schoo
achieved
stated
ends
different
means
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
case
alternative
accomplish
ut
objectives
without
gratuitously
branding
covers
tens
thousands
applications
bare
racial
stamp
tell
ing
student
defined
race
iii
majority
purports
agree
much
analysis
acknowledges
racial
characteristics
seldom
provide
relevant
basis
disparate
treatment
ace
may
considered
university
unless
admissions
process
withstand
strict
scrutiny
ante
admits
burden
proof
ut
ante
university
bears
heavy
burden
showing
obtained
educational
benefits
diversity
turned
plan
ante
recognizes
record
almost
devoid
information
students
secured
admission
university
plan
thus
know
students
admitted
solely
based
class
rank
differ
contribution
diversity
students
admitted
holistic
review
ante
end
case
without
identifying
missing
hispanic
students
already
admitting
process
without
showing
use
admissions
rectify
deficiency
ut
demonstrate
procedure
narrowly
tailored
yet
somehow
majority
concludes
petitioner
must
lose
result
ut
failure
provide
evidence
justifying
decision
employ
racial
discrimination
tellingly
frames
analysis
petitioner
bears
burden
proof
see
ante
petitioner
burden
show
consideration
race
unconstitutional
extent
record
inadequate
responsibility
lies
ut
hen
subjects
governmental
action
strict
scrutiny
construe
ambiguities
favor
state
parents
involved
supra
opinion
kennedy
particularly
summary
judgment
posture
obligates
view
facts
light
favorable
petitioner
see
matsushita
elec
industrial
zenith
radio
given
university
bears
burden
proof
surprising
ut
never
made
argument
win
based
lack
evidence
ut
instead
asserts
believes
deficiencies
record
cast
doubt
constitutionality
ut
policy
answer
order
trial
grant
summary
judgment
brief
respondents
see
also
doubts
top
law
works
ut
holistic
plan
offsets
tradeoffs
top
law
answer
remand
trial
nevertheless
majority
cites
three
reasons
breaking
normal
strict
scrutiny
standard
none
convincing
first
th
evidentiary
gap
perhaps
filled
remand
district
factfinding
ordinary
case
work
hen
petitioner
application
rejected
university
combined
approach
admission
effect
three
years
factfinding
might
yield
little
insight
ante
reasoning
dangerously
incorrect
equal
protection
clause
provide
grace
period
racial
discrimination
strict
scrutiny
ut
required
identify
evidence
admissions
necessary
achieve
compelling
interest
put
place
three
years
see
ante
petitioner
correct
university
bears
heavy
burden
showing
obtained
educational
benefits
diversity
turned
plan
emphasis
added
fisher
slip
trict
scrutiny
imposes
university
ultimate
burden
demonstrating
turning
racial
classifications
available
workable
alternatives
suffice
emphasis
added
ut
failure
obtain
actual
evidence
racial
preferences
necessary
resolving
use
confirms
decision
inject
race
admissions
reflexive
response
ut
seriously
consider
whether
means
serve
goals
well
process
second
effort
excuse
ut
lack
evidence
argues
university
lacks
authority
alter
role
top
ten
percent
plan
similarly
reason
keep
extensive
data
plan
students
admitted
particularly
years
fisher
clarified
stringency
burden
school
employs
review
ante
ut
long
aware
bears
burden
justifying
racial
discrimination
strict
scrutiny
see
brief
respondents
undisputed
ut
consideration
race
holistic
admissions
process
triggers
strict
scrutiny
inquiry
undeniably
rigorous
light
burden
ut
every
reason
keep
data
students
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
without
data
ut
possibly
identified
characteristics
lacking
top
ten
percent
admittees
obtained
via
admissions
ut
determine
employing
process
serve
goals
better
instance
expanding
top
ten
percent
plan
ut
possibly
make
determinations
without
studying
students
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
failure
demonstrates
ut
unthinkingly
employed
process
without
examining
whether
use
race
actually
necessary
claims
effor
comply
law
ante
majority
willingness
cite
ut
good
faith
basis
excusing
failure
adduce
evidence
particularly
inappropriate
light
ut
absence
good
faith
since
ut
described
admissions
policy
fisher
revealed
description
incomplete
explained
independent
investigation
ut
admissions
ut
maintained
clandestine
admissions
system
evaded
public
scrutiny
former
admissions
officer
blew
whistle
see
kroll
university
texas
austin
investigation
admissions
practices
allegations
undue
influence
kroll
report
longstanding
secret
process
university
officials
regularly
overrode
normal
holistic
review
allow
politically
connected
individuals
donors
alumni
legislators
members
board
regents
ut
officials
faculty
get
family
members
friends
admitted
ut
despite
grades
standardized
test
scores
substantially
median
admitted
students
see
also
blanchard
hoppe
influential
texans
helped
underqualified
students
get
ut
dallas
morning
news
july
online
http
education
headlines
influential
dozens
highly
influential
texans
including
lawmakers
millionaire
donors
university
regents
helped
underqualified
students
get
university
texas
often
writing
ut
officials
records
show
ut
officials
involved
covert
process
intentionally
kept
records
destroyed
exist
see
kroll
report
efforts
made
minimize
paper
trails
written
lists
process
one
meeting
administrative
assistants
tried
keeping
notes
proved
difficult
took
notes
later
shredded
one
administrative
assistant
usually
brought
meetings
stack
index
cards
subsequently
destroyed
see
also
finding
written
records
notes
secret
admissions
meetings
maintained
typically
shredded
course
litigation
ut
less
forthright
concerning
treatment
applicants
compare
tr
oral
arg
university
texas
legacy
honor
app
ur
legacy
policy
consider
legacy
kroll
report
discussing
evidence
influence
results
year
certain
applicants
receiving
competitive
boost
special
consideration
admissions
process
noting
aspect
admissions
process
appear
public
representations
admissions
process
despite
ut
apparent
readiness
mislead
public
majority
willing
satisfied
ut
profession
good
faith
grutter
kennedy
dissenting
notwithstanding
majority
claims
contrary
ut
access
plenty
information
students
admitted
solely
based
class
rank
differ
contribution
diversity
students
admitted
holistic
review
ante
ut
undoubtedly
knows
students
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
admitted
holistic
review
see
supp
app
undoubtedly
record
classes
students
enrolled
see
ut
office
registrar
transcript
official
online
https
instructing
graduates
obtain
transcript
listing
comprehensive
record
classes
taken
ut
use
information
demonstrate
whether
top
ten
percent
minority
admittees
less
likely
holistic
minority
admittees
choose
enroll
courses
lacking
diversity
addition
ut
assigns
pai
scores
students
including
admitted
top
ten
percent
plan
purposes
admission
individual
majors
accordingly
students
must
submit
full
application
containing
essays
letters
recommendation
resume
list
courses
taken
high
school
description
extracurricular
activities
leadership
experience
special
circumstances
see
app
garza
dissenting
unless
ut
destroyed
use
compare
unique
personal
characteristics
top
ten
minority
admittees
holistic
minority
admittees
determine
whether
top
ten
admittees
fact
less
desirable
holistic
admittees
may
require
ut
expend
resources
appropriate
burden
light
strict
scrutiny
standard
fact
relevant
information
ut
possession
cost
factfinding
strange
basis
awarding
victory
ut
huge
budget
loss
petitioner
finally
agree
majority
fifth
circuit
fisher
significantly
changed
governing
law
clarifying
stringency
strict
scrutiny
excuse
ut
meeting
heavy
burden
adarand
instance
another
case
clarified
rigor
strict
scrutiny
standard
acknowledged
decision
alter
ed
playing
field
important
respects
result
remand
ed
case
lower
courts
consideration
light
principles
announced
ibid
emphasis
added
words
made
clear
notwithstanding
shift
law
government
meet
clarified
burden
announcing
embrace
notion
decision
alter
stringency
strict
scrutiny
standard
somehow
allowed
government
automatically
prevail
third
majority
notes
litigation
persisted
many
years
petitioner
already
graduated
another
college
ut
policy
may
changed
time
case
may
offer
little
prospective
guidance
considerations
counsel
favor
dismissing
case
improvidently
granted
see
gratz
rejecting
dissent
argument
case
already
persisted
long
enough
petitioners
graduate
schools
case
dismissed
stevens
dissenting
none
considerations
bearing
whatsoever
merits
suit
majority
side
ut
simply
tired
case
iv
important
understand
stake
case
stake
whether
ut
university
may
adopt
admissions
plan
results
student
body
broad
representation
students
racial
ethnic
groups
ut
previously
plan
claimed
effectively
compensated
loss
affirmative
action
app
ut
taken
steps
increased
diversity
admitted
students
without
taking
race
ethnic
background
account
stake
whether
university
administrators
may
justify
systematic
racial
discrimination
simply
asserting
discrimination
necessary
achieve
educational
benefits
diversity
without
explaining
much
less
proving
discrimination
needed
discriminatory
plan
well
crafted
serve
objectives
even
though
ut
never
provided
coherent
explanation
asserted
need
discriminate
basis
race
even
though
ut
position
relies
series
unsupported
noxious
racial
assumptions
majority
concludes
ut
met
heavy
burden
conclusion
remarkable
remarkably
wrong
ut
failed
satisfy
strict
scrutiny
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
see
also
nissimov
ut
resume
factoring
applicants
race
ut
reintroduce
criteria
houston
chronicle
june
president
larry
faulkner
said
monday
institution
quickly
develop
admissions
criteria
fall
used
summer
fall
given
green
light
monday
ruling
silverstein
hong
trounson
state
finds
hemmed
times
june
explaining
ut
intention
dropping
race
consideration
move
swiftly
restore
use
admissions
time
next
admissions
cycle
hart
texas
ponders
changes
law
boston
globe
june
soon
monday
ruling
university
texas
president
larry
faulkner
said
school
overhaul
procedures
order
allow
consideration
race
applicant
students
enrolling
fall
ambiguity
remains
high
leaves
quota
questions
looming
el
paso
times
june
university
texas
austin
president
larry
faulkner
already
announced
new
admissions
policies
drafted
include
race
factor
texas
population
asian
ut
enrolled
freshmen
see
supp
app
census
bureau
quickfacts
quickfacts
texas
online
https
contrast
texas
population
identified
hispanic
latino
lower
percentage
ut
enrolled
freshmen
hispanic
see
supp
app
quickfacts
texas
ut
goal
least
two
two
hispanics
two
present
relevant
classrooms
goal
literally
unreachable
classes
five
practically
unreachable
many
small
classes
majority
assertion
ut
policy
discriminate
students
see
ante
defies
laws
mathematics
ut
program
clearly
designed
increase
number
hispanic
students
giving
admissions
boost
applicants
see
supp
app
app
cf
supp
wd
tex
see
also
ante
citing
increases
presence
hispanics
ut
evidence
program
successful
given
limited
number
spaces
app
providing
boost
hispanics
inevitably
harms
students
receive
boost
decreasing
odds
admission
particular
fifth
circuit
willful
blindness
students
absolutely
shameless
instance
one
fifth
circuit
primary
contentions
ut
repeatedly
highlighted
brief
argument
given
sat
score
gaps
whites
one
hand
hispanics
holistic
admissions
approach
enterprise
absence
racial
preferences
making
argument
failed
mention
reason
omission
obvious
indicated
sources
fifth
circuit
relied
point
pages
cited
enrollees
admitted
ut
holistic
review
consistently
higher
average
sat
scores
white
enrollees
admitted
holistic
review
see
ut
office
admissions
implementation
results
texas
automatic
admissions
law
hb
university
texas
austin
demographic
analysis
entering
freshmen
fall
pp
rev
cited
ut
office
admissions
implementation
results
texas
automatic
admissions
law
hb
university
texas
austin
demographic
analysis
entering
freshmen
fall
pp
cited
fifth
circuit
intentional
omission
analysis
also
evident
appendices
opinion
either
omit
reference
misleadingly
label
see
reality
ut
treats
applicants
apparently
fit
neat
story
fifth
circuit
wanted
tell
anybody
guess
whether
group
also
includes
applicants
full
partial
arab
armenian
azerbaijani
georgian
kurdish
persian
turkish
descent
whether
applicants
considered
brief
judicial
watch
et
al
amici
curiae
census
bureau
census
shows
population
grew
faster
population
online
https
wang
pew
research
center
interracial
marriage
marrying
june
online
http
wang
pew
research
center
rise
intermarriage
online
http
amici
supporting
ut
certainly
understood
arguing
needs
affirmative
action
admit
privileged
minorities
see
brief
six
educational
nonprofit
organizations
citing
brief
respondents
ut
amici
continue
press
version
argument
see
brief
six
educational
nonprofit
organizations
intraracial
diversity
explodes
perceived
associations
racial
groups
particular
demographic
characteristics
stereotype
black
students
students
groups
come
poor
backgrounds
schools
like
ut
combat
stereotypes
seeking
admit
latino
students
elevated
socioeconomic
backgrounds
citation
omitted
arguing
ut
needs
racial
preferences
admit
minority
students
elevated
socioeconomic
backgrounds
students
equal
social
footing
average
nonminority
student
latino
students
may
come
higher
socioeconomic
status
may
serve
agent
promoting
disequilibrium
disrupt
stereotypical
associations
students
also
likely
better
able
promote
communication
integration
campus
citation
omitted
see
strauss
study
high
school
grades
best
predictor
college
success
scores
washington
post
online
https
see
freedle
correcting
sat
ethnic
bias
method
reestimating
sat
scores
harv
ed
rev
sat
shown
culturally
statistically
biased
african
americans
hispanic
americans
asian
americans
santelices
wilson
unfair
treatment
case
freedle
sat
standardization
approach
differential
item
functioning
harv
ed
rev
questioning
validity
sat
scores
consequently
admissions
decisions
based
scores
brief
amherst
university
et
al
amici
curiae
xperience
taught
amici
sat
act
scores
students
accurately
predict
achievement
later
college
beyond
brief
experimental
psychologists
amici
curiae
substantial
body
research
social
scientists
revealed
standardized
test
scores
grades
often
underestimate
true
academic
capacity
members
certain
minority
groups
brief
six
educational
nonprofit
organizations
amici
curiae
underrepresentation
latino
students
conventional
academic
metrics
also
reflection
racial
bias
standardized
testing
zumbrun
sat
scores
income
inequality
wealthier
kids
rank
higher
wall
street
journal
online
http
see
brief
california
institute
technology
et
al
amici
curiae
amicus
george
washington
university
experience
standardized
test
scores
considered
limited
reveal
applicant
university
recently
done
away
requirement
altogether
see
also
american
university
applying
test
optional
online
http
university
arizona
office
admissions
frequently
asked
questions
online
https
bowdoin
college
test
optional
policy
online
http
brandeis
university
policy
online
http
bryn
mawr
college
standardized
testing
policy
online
http
college
holy
cross
look
online
http
george
washington
university
policy
online
https
new
york
university
standardized
tests
online
http
smith
college
students
online
http
temple
university
temple
option
faq
online
http
wake
forest
university
test
optional
online
http
wake
forest
dropped
standardized
testing
requirements
based
least
part
perception
tests
unfair
blacks
minorities
offer
effective
tool
determine
minority
students
succeed
college
wake
forest
presents
serious
threat
far
future
sat
journal
blacks
higher
education
summer
see
also
ibid
university
admissions
officials
say
one
reason
dropping
sat
encourage
black
minority
applicants
year
new
policy
announced
wake
forest
minority
applications
went
first
class
exhibited
big
leap
forward
minority
enrollment
soares
sat
wars
case
college
admissions
thnic
diversity
undergraduate
population
increased
percent
wake
forest
university
test
optional
online
http
wake
forest
reports
dropping
standardized
testing
requirements
compromise
academic
quality
institution
made
university
diverse
intellectually
stimulating
ibid
asserts
holistic
review
workable
alternative
ut
tried
failed
meet
goals
via
method
see
ante
perhaps
significantly
wake
hopwood
university
spent
seven
years
attempting
achieve
compelling
interest
using
holistic
review
never
explains
basis
concluding
ut
previous
system
failed
told
measuring
success
knows
program
satisfy
ut
goals
effectively
holistic
review
although
majority
elsewhere
emphasizes
university
continuing
obligation
satisfy
burden
strict
scrutiny
light
changing
circumstances
ante
rejection
holistic
review
relies
exclusively
evidence
predating
petitioner
suit
five
years
freshmen
texas
high
schools
enrolled
ut
admitted
outside
top
ten
percent
plan
supp
app
based
statistics
reasonable
assume
university
undertaken
holistic
review
students
hispanic
see
ibid
university
holistic
review
freshmen
texas
hispanic
freshmen
texas
enrolled
thus
reflecting
increase
students
hispanic
students
marginal
increases
students
divided
number
total
enrolled
freshmen
texas
high
schools
see
calculation
yields
percentages
mentioned
text
recall
ut
president
vowed
reinstate
admissions
within
hours
grutter
release
see
part
supra
see
also
parents
involved
community
schools
seattle
school
dist
well
established
government
distributes
burdens
benefits
basis
individual
racial
classifications
action
reviewed
strict
scrutiny
grutter
bollinger
held
racial
classifications
imposed
government
analyzed
reviewing
strict
gratz
bollinger
well
established
racial
classifications
reviewable
equal
protection
clause
must
strictly
adarand
constructors
peña
hold
today
racial
classifications
imposed
whatever
federal
state
local
government
actor
must
analyzed
reviewing
strict
scrutiny
majority
claim
ut
full
opportunity
respond
kroll
report
ante
simply
wrong
report
discussed
less
six
briefs
filed
case
see
brief
opposition
reply
brief
opposition
brief
respondents
brief
cato
institute
amicus
curiae
certiorari
stage
brief
cato
institute
amicus
curiae
merits
stage
brief
judicial
education
project
amicus
curiae
ut
opportunity
respond
kroll
report
fact
respond
certiorari
stage
merits
stage
see
brief
opposition
explicitly
discussing
recently
released
kroll
report
brief
respondents
similar
purported
concern
reliance
extrarecord
materials
ante
rings
especially
hollow
light
willingness
affirm
decision
relied
heavily
fifth
circuit
extrarecord
internet
research
see
majority
also
wrong
claiming
kroll
report
tangential
case
best
ante
given
majority
blind
deference
good
faith
ut
officials
evidence
officials
failed
speak
candor
forthrightness
expected
people
respective
positions
trust
leadership
kroll
university
texas
austin
investigation
admissions
practices
allegations
undue
influence
discussing
ut
admissions
process
highly
relevant
ut
current
records
retention
policy
requires
retain
student
records
including
application
materials
least
five
years
student
graduates
see
university
texas
austin
records
retention
schedule
agency
item
online
https
policy
place
ut
resumed
admissions
still
materials
petitioner
filed
suit
likely
still
time
fisher
least
application
materials
freshman
class
appear
subject
litigation
hold
see
app
extent
ut
failed
preserve
records
consequences
decision
fall
university
petitioner
cf
tyson
foods
bouaphakeo
slip
allowing
representative
sample
fill
evidentiary
gap
created
employer
failure
keep
adequate
records
see
ante
fisher
clarified
stringency
burden
school
employs
review
bringing
forward
justice
kennedy
dissent
grutter
faulted
district
review
ut
austin
means
achieve
permissible
goal
diversity
garza
dissenting
agree
majority
fisher
represents
decisive
shift
law