<p>Classic SCOTUS…as a rule they don’t like making earth shattering rulings…and they seek consensus…</p>
<p>In this case, they don’t feel the 5th circuit took into account that “Under Grutter, strict scrutiny must be applied to any admissions program using racial categories or classifications.” In other words, Grutter is not an automatic pass for an university. If race is to be used in admissions, it must be pass “strict scrutiny”. </p>
<p>The 5th circuit didn’t test to see if UT’s use meet this criteria…it simply said Grutter allows the univeristy to use race.</p>
<p>Now with these words of wisdom from SCOTUS…the 5th circuit will re-visit the case…</p>
<p>7 to 1, remand back to lower court - “The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.”</p>
<p>This is what I thought, not a complete attack on AA, but that it will be looked at much more closely. </p>
<p>Scalia says he agreed to majority because Fisher’s case didn’t ask the Court to overrule Grutter. Code: send me a case asking for that</p>
<p>It’s hard to see who “wins” in this decision. I’m having particular trouble with “University judgment is OK, but only if it passes strict scrutiny by the Courts.” Makes “allowable university judgment” sound like a contradiction in terms.</p>
<p>The easy way out for UT is to redesign their admission practices to eliminate race. Some see this as progress “because now each applicant will be evaluated fairly.” But what does “fairly” mean? Further dilution of URM admissions at UT is clearly unacceptable to the University. Maybe what this means is that the University moves the “Ten percent rule” from the current 7% to perhaps 9% … leaving perhaps 1500 slots to resolve critical student shortages (i.e., athletes, internationals, oboe players, and the like). </p>
<p>In contrast, the losers in this decision are easy to identify.</p>
<p>I am willing to bet when it’s all said and done, the demographics of the admitted class will not change significantly.</p>
<p>You just eliminate the consideration of race and add consideration of overcoming adversity, economic hardship, or whatever else levels the field.</p>
<p>It was a stupid suit that has wasted/is wasting a lot of time and money to no real end.</p>
<p>^ And Abigail Fisher still isn’t going to be admitted. But she still has standing to argue that “her race” is being discriminated against … even though she’s part of an ORM (i.e., Over-Represented-Majority). It would be laughable, if it wasn’t so sad.</p>
<p>I agree with xiggi on the merits–but hey, the decision is great news for the people who will find work writing up the tailored justifications for different schools’ consideration of race in the context of holistic admissions.</p>
<p>It would have been nice if Abigail Fisher had been a more compelling plaintiff. I saw an interview with her. She is not a very articulate young woman and did not make any convincing arguments for the “injustice” perpetrated on her. It seems to me that she was selected for her role in this case, not that she personally sought out remediation for her rejection.</p>
<p>^ Hunt - Yes, unless UT decides that finding a acceptable use for “Race” is like trying to catch the wind. As Justice Ginsburg (and several posters on this thread have observed) if it wasn’t for segregation in housing and schools, UT’s Ten Percent Plan wouldn’t generate anything close to a diverse student body.</p>
<p>Next up, Fisher sues the State of Texas claiming that the use of district boundaries to assign students to schools has denied her the opportunity to compete for a Top Ten Percent slot by precluding enrollment at a high school “where I would be a top student.”</p>
<p>As I read it, courts will still defer to a university’s determination that diversity is an important goal, but will apply strict scrutiny to the means chosen to achieve it. So the universities will write up a big document explaining why their approach is necessary to achieve diversity. Unless and until the Court is ready to reverse Grutter, some of those documents will pass muster, and things won’t change much.</p>
<p>I think SCOTUS “hinted” to the lower court that they should find UT’s system doesn’t meet strict scrutiny, not that the lower court has to take the hint…</p>
<p>This case is going to roll on for a few more years…and the only result may be UT’s not taking race into consideration in the Holistic admission…which will not impact % URM, but may lower high SES URM % a bit. Big whoop.</p>
<p>Now…next Term’s affirmative action case (from Michigan), that looks interesting… Did the state of Michigan violated the Equal Protection Clause by amending its state Constitution to prohibit affirmative action!!!</p>