TXEXplainer: Five Things To Know About Fisher v. Texas
The University of Texas at Austin is in the spotlight regarding the use of race in admissions. We’ve compiled five things every Longhorn should know about UT-Austin and the high-profile Supreme Court case.
Update, 2:15 p.m.: You can read a transcript of this morning’s oral arguments here, and a recap from the SCOTUSblog here.
1) The Facts of the Case. In 2008, Abigail Fisher graduated from Stephen F. Austin High School in Sugar Land. Because she graduated outside the top 10 percent of her class, her application to UT-Austin underwent a process the University calls “holistic review,” in which a number of factors–including race—are taken into account. Fisher was denied admission and sued the University, claiming a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause. In essence, Ms. Fisher is claiming that she was denied admission to UT-Austin because of her race.
2) This is the latest in the long (and somewhat confusing) line of race-based admission cases. And it may not be the last. The question of using race as an admission criterion has been debated since before desegregation. In 1950, a Texas court decided against Heman Sweatt, a black student seeking admission to UT Law, only to have the decision overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court later that year. In the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race could be used to create diversity, but not to address historical injustice. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1996’s Hopwood v. Texas case that affirmative action for the sake of diversity is unconstitutional. Hopwood was itself overturned in 2003 with the Supreme Court’s Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger decisions, which upheld affirmative action as one of many factors to create diversity, as long as a point or quota system was not used. This is the basis of UT-Austin’s current admissions system.
3) UT-Austin uses race in admissions, but it’s not quite that simple. The fraught legal history of admissions is irrelevant to most UT-Austin students. For most students, admission boils down to a simple question: were you in the top 10 percent of your graduating class? Three-quarters of incoming freshman are admitted under the top 10 percent law. The remaining quarter undergoes holistic review, a process the New York Times calls a “mystery.” While the criteria used are well documented, the question of who benefits from holistic review is fuzzier. Seeming to counter Ms. Fisher’s assertion, a smaller percentage of minority students are admitted under holistic review, the only part of UT-Austin’s “blended” admissions that takes race into account.
4) The debate over affirmative action is still very much alive. There are, without a doubt, pure legal challenges in the Fisher case (i.e. Would Ms. Fisher have been admitted if race weren’t considered? Did she suffer any injury that even justifies a lawsuit?). What has made this case so talked-about, however, are the broad moral questions raised by the consideration of affirmative action. A huge number of groups have weighed in on both sides, including dozens who filed amicus briefs (legal notes supporting either side). The majority of these briefs have been in support of UT-Austin, including by the family of Heman* Sweatt. UT-Austin alumnus Kenneth Jastrow and UT Law professor Lino A. Graglia provide a good starting place to understand both sides of the debate.
5) What happens if Fisher wins. UT-Austin loses control over whom it admits. Senate Bill 175, the same bill that put the 75 percent cap on admissions under the top 10 percent law, also includes a trigger clause that states if holistic review is overturned by, say, the Supreme court, the cap also goes away. Without a cap, the University will be legally required to admit top 10 percent students until the freshman class is full, meaning the entire class. It remains to be seen whether the 83rd Texas Legislature, elected next month and starting in January, will plan for this option. Whether they’re ready or not, the Fisher decision is expected next spring.
To dig deeper, check out Jeffrey Toobin’s piece in The New Yorker, and the extensive coverage in the Daily Texan, the Texas Tribune and the SCOTUSblog.
Photo by Mark Fischer on Flickr.
Share this article
![UT Is Transforming Education [Watch]](http://alcalde.texasexes.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Picture-2.png){kind=small}
-
Brian: The truth lies in the date of the original "Warrant For Arrest" papers for the m...
-
Michael O'Neal: The regents are a symptom of the micromanaging and intrusive actions of Governor...
-
Jordan Schraeder: Hi Randolph, I've scanned in part of the December 1916 issue for you. You can...
-
John P.: You should have made this clear in the original....
-
Randolph: Is there any way for you to provide a scanned copy of the article in the Decembe...
11 Comments
Which means she still would not have been admitted if the proposed laws where in place because she did not make the top 10 percent of her graduating class.
The only question is, “Was race used as a qualifier, and did she have a higher percentage (or better grades) than someone that was admitted from a “minority” group?” I doubt we would ever get an honest answer to the first part of the question, which in itself means the admittance system needs review and change. If you believe in something, why hide your actions in the shadows? If you truly did not take race into consideration, then there should be no merit for a ruling against UT, because the applications can’t lie.
It’s Heman Sweatt, not Herman. You got it right in #2, but not #4.
@DKTX Good spot. We have fixed it. Thanks!
UT has already admitted that they use race as a form of admittance…it isnt a question..They DO it. The question is ,,,IS IT ILLEGAL….The decision will have GREAT bearing on ALL colleges. It would allow a college to choose to accept ALL white students BEFORE Minorities throwing grades aside……
Brad, they did not admit specifically if they used race in this instance to grant admittance to a less qualified person, they just said, “We use race.”
But, that is irrelevant. If this passed it would NOT allow schools to just “take all white kids” while throwing grades aside, as you suggest. It would simply make grades the sole factor in the decision.
“Without a cap, the University will be legally required to admit top 10 percent students until the freshman class is full, meaning the entire class.”
…which means there is a serious problem with the Top 10% rule the State of Texas has decided time and time again is fair.
The remaining 25% of spaces go to students outside the top 10%, outside of the state, and outside of the country. 62% of them were white. And you can bet that some of those spots go to student athletes (of all races).
You cannot base admissions solely on grades or SAT scores. No university does that. You admit a unique person with unique academic interests.
Ensuring a diverse student body has been deemed “constitutional” in the past. The question is how and to what extent you do it.
It seems more likely to me that she “lost” “her” spot at UT to a very qualified out of state student or someone with a higher SAT score.
The big difference in Fischer versus older cases is the fact that the minority acceptance is extraordinarily high here without the use of race. Schools can discriminate with regard to race to get a “critical mass” of minority students, so that there are enough minority students don’t feel isolated, feel like they can speak freely, and so that students as a whole have exposure to a diverse group of peers. Question is, if you’re already hitting 40-something percent minorities without using race, why do you need to bring race in? What more do you gain by discriminating in order to get a few percent more minorities? And wouldn’t it be better to discriminate on more acceptable grounds to get a diverse body (leadership experience, diversity of achievements, poor and rich people, people from rural and urban background, differing political views, etc)
[...] Ten Percent Law and the review process called holistic admission. That process is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The University has also committed to raising its four-year graduation [...]
[...] it comes to race in admissions, all eyes remain on UT: a decision on the high-profile Fisher v. The University of Texas case, which could ban the consideration of race in admissions, is expected this [...]