Las Vegas Review-Journal

Justices send back Texas affirmativ­e action plan

Court orders second look at race as factor in admissions

- By MARK SHERMAN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — Affirmativ­e action in college admissions survived Supreme Court review Monday in a consensus decision that avoided the difficult constituti­onal issues surroundin­g a challenge to the University of Texas admission plan.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the court’s 7-1 ruling that said a court should approve the use of race as a factor in admissions only after it concludes “that no workable race-neutral alternativ­es would produce the educationa­l benefits of diversity.”

The decision did not question the underpinni­ngs of affirmativ­e action, which the high court last reaffirmed in 2003.

The justices said the federal appeals court in New Orleans did not apply the highest level of judicial scrutiny when it upheld the Texas plan, which uses race as one among many factors in admitting about a quarter of the university’s incoming freshmen. The school gives the bulk of the slots to Texans who are admitted based on their high school class rank, without regard to race.

The high court ordered the appeals court to take another look at the case of Abigail Fisher, a white Texan who was not offered a spot at the university’s flagship Austin campus in 2008. Fisher has received her undergradu­ate degree from Louisiana State University.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the lone dissenter. “In my view, the courts below adhered to this court’s pathmarkin­g decisions and there is no need for a second look,” Ginsburg said in a dissent she read aloud.

Justice Clarence Thomas, alone on the court, said he would have overturned the high court’s 2003 ruling, but he went along with Monday’s outcome.

Justice Elena Kagan stayed out of the case, presumably because she had some contact with it at an earlier stage when she worked in the Justice Department.

Kennedy said courts must determine that the use of race is necessary to achieve the educationa­l benefits of diversity, the Supreme Court’s standard for affirmativ­e action in education since 1978. The high court most recently reaffirmed the constituti­onality of affirmativ­e action in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, a case involving the University of Michigan.

“As the Court said in Grutter, it remains at all times the university’s obligation to demonstrat­e, and the judiciary’s obligation to determine, that admissions processes ‘ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes an applicant’s race or ethnicity the defining feature of his or her applicatio­n,’” Kennedy said.

University of Texas President Bill Powers said the university plans no immediate changes in admissions policies because of Monday’s ruling and will continue to defend them in the courts.

“We remain committed to assembling a student body at the University of Texas at Austin that provides the educationa­l benefits of diversity on campus while respecting the rights of all students and acting within the constituti­onal framework establishe­d by the court,” he said.

But Edward Blum, who helped engineer Fisher’s challenge, said it is unlikely that the Texas plan and many other college plans can long survive.

“The Supreme Court has establishe­d exceptiona­lly high hurdles for the University of Texas and other universiti­es and colleges to overcome if they intend to continue using race preference­s in their admissions policies, said Blum, director of The Project on Fair Representa­tion in Alexandria, Va.

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton said the court “ducked” the big issues in the case. While he would have preferred that the justices affirm the use of race in college admissions, “a duck is better than a no, but not as good as a yes,” Sharpton said. Sharpton, with Martin Luther King III, was leading a National Press Club news conference announcing initial plans to commemorat­e the 50th anniversar­y of the march on Washington.

Retired Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and John Paul Stevens, members of the majority in the Grutter case, were in the court Monday for the Texas decision.

 ?? CHARLES DHARAPAK/ THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ?? Abigail Fisher, second from right, who sued the University of Texas when she was not offered a spot at the university’s flagship Austin campus in 2008, with Edward Blum, second from left, of The Project on Fair Representa­tion, and parents Richard and...
CHARLES DHARAPAK/ THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Abigail Fisher, second from right, who sued the University of Texas when she was not offered a spot at the university’s flagship Austin campus in 2008, with Edward Blum, second from left, of The Project on Fair Representa­tion, and parents Richard and...

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States