<p>For comparison, consider Roe v. Wade, which was a class action. The named plaintiff wasn’t pregnant any more by the time of the decision, and could not have taken advantage of the change in law. But lots of other women in Texas were pregnant, so the court still had a live controversy before it via the suit on their behalf.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that the standing question is a slam dunk, just that this is where I come out on it. The court may decide that merely having the state take note of her race was a constitutional injury that can be remedied by some token damages. For instance, being struck from a jury on account of race is a constitutional injury to the juror that doesn’t cause him any tangible harm, and he has standing to sue. I think that sort of analysis would be silly in this instance, where the rejection letter is the injury that matters, but it would solve the standing question.</p>
<p>This brief might be worth excerpting. Apologies to those who’ve already read it.</p>
<p>The Personal Achievement Index is based on scores on two essays, and a personal achievement score based upon a review of the applicants entire file.
R.E. 40. The factors considered in assigning the personal achievement score are the same as those adopted in 1997 (described at p. 4, supra), with the addition of race. Proposal 27-28. Race, by itself, is not given any numerical value. The Universitys Director of Admissions explained how race is considered in this process:</p>
<p>Race, like any other factor, is by itself never determinative of an admissions decision and like every other factor is never considered in isolation or out of the context of other aspects of the students application file. Race is considered as part of the larger holistic review of every applicant regardless of race. No applicant is reviewed separately or differently because of their race or any other factor. An applicants race, standing alone, is neither a benefit nor detriment to any applicant. Instead, race provides like language, whether or not someone is the first in their family to attend college, and family responsibilities important context in which to evaluate applicants, and is only one aspect of the diversity that the University seeks to attain.</p>
<p>Well, I think the point is “race, standing alone.” Here you have to reflect carefully:</p>
<p>Because the University’s conception of diversity, as reflected in the Personal Achievement Index, includes a broad range of experiences and attributes, the University has explicitly stated that race may be a positive factor for applicants of any race, including whites. R.E. 41. For example, both a white applicant who is president of a predominantly African-American high school and an African-American applicant who is president of a predominantly white high school “bring an additional aspect of diversity when one considers the relative rarity of being a student leader who can reach across racial lines.” Walker Aff. ¶ 16. And similarly, a “white student who was the president of a white majority high school,” just like a “Hispanic student [who] was president of a Hispanic majority high school” would be recognized “for taking leadership roles,” but their race “would not be of particular moment in terms of overall diversity.” Ibid. Race is therefore viewed as a factor taken in the context of a whole person.</p>
<p>Well, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth … you know, around 2003 … “critical mass” was a concept offered up by the SCOTUS. No one knew what it meant even then, and the SCOTUS granted UT a tiny bit of lattitude to manage the university’s diversity. But times change, SCOTUS Justices change. Has the definition of “critical mass” changed?</p>
<p>Under holistic admissions there is no formula, as its advocates have often stated. Therefore no one can know with certainty that Fisher would not have been accepted if race were not a factor. How large does the probability of her acceptance under a race-neutral system have to be to give her standing? Is is 10%, 50%, or 90%?</p>
The implication is that the student body president of a majority African-American high school might be selected if she is white but not if she is African-American. How does that not make race a decisive individual factor?</p>
<p>(To clarify, I’m not saying this is critical to UT’s case or anything like that. It’s just strange.)</p>
<p>Bel, maybe not a formal formula, owing to the subjective nature. But definitely a framework within which you seek the sorts of kids who will fit and thrive, meet various needs, from that U’s perspective. IME.</p>
<p>Read my link. Fisher didn’t pass muster with the indexes of the holistic part.</p>
<p>That is either incorrect or a faulty premise. I believe that evidence that supports the exact contrary of your speculation has been posted a couple of times in this thread. </p>
<p>While none of us knows with certainty is she could have been accepted, the University of Texas DOES know. Its officials have explained in pretty clear terms that she would not have been accepted even if scored perfectly on the personal index. That means that she could have received the race bonus and still be rejected for direct admission. That also means that race did NOT play a factor. Unless one believes that the University of Texas would attempt to deceit the Supreme Court by playing games with a VERIFIABLE piece of evidence. </p>
<p>No matter how many times we spin the released information around, the facts are pretty clear in the case of Fisher. She did not crack the 10 percent minimum that would have been her lifesaver. That brought her SAT in context, and it was too low to secure a direct admission. The GPA is not considered at Texas, and that left her with little to nothing to “claim” a spot as her “file” was lackluster, except through the summer or CAP program that she declined to try her luck at LSU. All in all, she was the poster child for a great number of typical applicants at UT … and those are the ones who could ONLY be admitted via the ten (or seven) percent rule. And that category transcends race, if that matters! For every Antonio and LaQuisha, there is a Bubba who gets in via his auto-admission. </p>
<p>For someone who appears to be solidly in the camp of “paint by the numbers” admissions that relies solely on verifiable data such as test scores, you really are making an effort to accept the simples of elements – when they do not support your agenda. Or so it seems to the naked eye.</p>
<p>And, as far as your agenda, it must be a shame that Blum, despite his best and relentless efforts, could not scrape a better candidate for his quest to tailor the 14th Amendment to his liking.</p>
<p>PS Holistic admissions is not a proxy for admissions without a formula. Years ago, I posted the exact numerical formula used at some of the UC schools.</p>
<p>Many universities also give “extra points” to poor white people in urban or rural communities as well. If you didn’t have APs, you didn’t have APs. Also, there are some white people in the inner city, and they often see similar “extra points” since they didn’t have the same academic opportunities as a wealthy teen in a private or top-notch public school.</p>
<p>It is not JUST about race. It is about socioeconomic context. This is especially true at top-tier schools, but it is true most places these days.</p>
<p>EDIT: To bring Fisher back into this: she did not meet the requirements for auto-admission, and her extracurriculars and leadership were nothing noteworthy. Now, at this point, “race” could become a factor: why didn’t she make the cut numerically? Did she grow up poor and have to work 2 jobs to support her family (hence the low grades and no leadership)? Has she been forced to move often (military family, migrant worker, financial strain, etc.)? Was there a language barrier that limited her success on the SAT and in classes? If no, then she has no “excuse” and is not admitted.</p>
<p>Note that many minority groups are likely to fill some of those special considerations. It’s not that brown skin would have gotten her in: it’s that growing up under difficult circumstances could explain her less-than-perfect performance.</p>
<p>12.2% Black
1.0% Native American
4.0% Asian
0.1% Hawaian, Pacific Islander
1.7% Multi-racial
38.1% Hispanic, Latino
44.8% White, not Hispanic</p>
<p>100.2% Total (excludes multi-racial)</p>
<p>I find it interesting that nearly half the Hispanic/Latinos in Texas reported themselves as White. How nice in college admissions to have your cake and eat it.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I’ve always felt it’s important to separate the UC factors (or Texas) from assumptions about how the elite privates weigh context.</p>
<p>Luisa, it’s not about socioeconomic context as some absolute or stand alone. Just as Texas is saying it is not about race, alone. It’s about what you accomplished within that context. Note that the holistic part of UT admissions is fiercely competitive.</p>
<p>@GMTplus7 From that data, it looks like %White = (% who say they are Hispanic, Latino) + (% who say they are White, not Hispanic). Sounds like the data processing considered Hispanic/Latino to be a subset of white – not that the people themselves identified as White. Could you clarify?</p>
<p>GMT, I’m not exactly sure what you mean, but as a white Hispanic your comment really rubbed me the wrong way.</p>
<p>ETA: I’m trying to remember how the census broke it down last time. There is not always a “Latino” option under race. It’s often “white, black, Asian, Native American” (sometimes some other) and then a box for “Hispanic/Latino regardless of race”. When that happens, most Latino/as that I know pick white.</p>
<p>GMT do you realize that there are such people as White Hispanics (and Black Hispanics)? Also, Brazilians and Portuguese people, who many would consider Hispanic, are actually classified as White (not Latino either) even if the average person would not see them as that. Those two groups alone could make up a large portion of that. </p>
<p>Maybe you should do some research on race/ethnicity.</p>
<p>I also agree with luisa, something about that math isn’t correct.</p>
<p>That’s exactly what I meant. Being poor alone does not get anyone in, but a poor kid with a 3.5 could be comparable to a rich kid with a 4.0 etc. It’s just the context in which your achievement is viewed.</p>
<p>Also, census identity reporting is taken as the respondent states, and does not restrict one to one choice. No one really thinks only 1.7% are multi-racial, right? So, of the % reporting white, 44.8% do not (also) identify as Hispanic.</p>