@lookingforward , @bluebayou is correct, low SES admits do not of their nature touch on a protected classification… So yes, there is something unique about blacks and hispanics within the context of this litigation. It is just not what you are implying. If the policy at UT was to reach out for low SES kids in general, there would be no cognizable constitutional case. It is the fact that the school is openly seeking to admit people of a particular race that raises the issue. For the record, I was a low SES admit to a snooty east coast school. I was horribly unprepared. Never heard of an AP class, my trig professor (highest math offered in the school) was an alcoholic who slept through class, fights would break out in classrooms with regularity, etc. Very difficult transition both academically and socially. No way I would have got through it without the tutoring and handholding provided by the athletic department. I am sure it would have been far more difficult if I was also an underrepresented minority. So maybe I am pre disposed to believe there is some merit in the theory that kids who are not prepared for a rigorous academic environment fair worse, statistically, than those from suburban schools with Math Olympics, IB, etc., etc. The theory fits with my personal experience, so it must be generally correct, right?
It might help to realize that I am a lawyer, so my perspective on questions like this is simply different than most. Probably like your perspective on admissions (from what I have gleaned from other threads) is simply different than the perspective of those of us who do not live in that world day after day.
As an example, I never said that I wanted to eliminate race in holistic admissions. What I said was that the use of race, even if only as one of many factors, requires proof that the means chosen (reference to race) is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest (a diverse student body). No one (not even Scalia and Thomas) seriously contends that a diverse student body is not a compelling state interest, and this case is not going to be decided on that basis. Where there is broad disagreement is on the use of preferences to achieve the desired end. Because the use of race implicates a protected class, the burden is on the school to prove that the means chosen is the most narrowly tailored (least discriminatory) to achieve the desired end. Put another way, the use of race in any form in making admissions decisions is presumptively unconstitutional until and unless the school can prove that the use of race is necessary. This is a fundamental point, and should be kept in mind to really understand what is going on in these cases.
The reason I keep banging on this is that I am, perhaps arrogantly and certainly unsuccessfully, trying to explain why Fisher I is a consequential case in its own right, and independent of what occurs in Fisher II. Many of you are missing that from Bakke to Fisher I schools received great deference from the Court when they would assert that the use of race in the particular fashion under review was narrowly tailored. In Gruetter, Kennedy wrote separately in part to highlight that he believed this granting of deference (effectively a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of the policy) turned strict scrutiny review on its head. Then here comes Fisher I, with its unique admissions system, and you now have seven Justices who believe this deference is inappropriate. So Kennedy writes the majority opinion, says that the case should be treated like a regular strict scrutiny case, and the school should be forced to prove why the means chosen are appropriate. That is a very significant change. Just based on oral argument, which is often a terrible predictor of how a case is going to come out, it appears that UT is not capable of carrying their burden under this system. The question, I think, is how broad is the opinion and will this decision be limited to the somewhat unique UT system and the Court will wait for the next set of cases to reach it or will they step out and try and explain how they envision this litigation will run in a post Fisher I world.