Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (II)

Brief Filed: Nov. 2, 2015
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Year of Decision: 2016

Read full-text amicus briefopens in new window (PDF, 196KB)

Involves the question of whether the Fifth Circuit’s re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.

Affirmative Action

In Fisher I, petitioner did “not challenge” “the principle that the consideration of race in admissions is permissible.” Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S. Ct. 1623, 1630 (2014) (Kennedy, J., plurality op.). As a result, the only merits question remaining in this case is whether the University of Texas’s admissions practice is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest “in the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” Fisher I, 133 S. Ct. at 2417.

In this case, the petitioner attacked the settled predicate that “obtaining the educational benefits of ‘student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.’” Id. (quoting Grutter, 539 U.S. at 325). In Fisher II, the petitioner argued that “UT has never been clear about precisely why it needs to use racial preferences.” Pet’r Br. 20.  APA’s amicus brief therefore addressed again the substantial, documented and continuing need for increased diversity in higher education. Social science research confirms that the benefits of admissions policies like UT’s extend far beyond admissions. As this Court long has recognized, diversity in higher education enhances the educational experience for all students. APA’s brief provided research supporting the position that underrepresentation of minority groups poses significant obstacles to effective education of both minority and nonminority students. The social isolation and stereotyping experienced by underrepresented minorities inhibits those students’ mental and emotional functioning, which leads to decreased academic performance and impaired emotional well-being. Members of majority groups, too, are hindered by persistent implicit biases that can lead to disruptions of mental function.

APA presented social science research demonstrating that increased campus diversity is a remedy for these problems. Increasing the representation of distinct racial groups improves various aspects of intellectual performance and can improve academic achievement for both minority and nonminority students. Furthermore, campus diversity reduces prejudice, enhances leadership skills, and better prepares students to participate in modern civic society. However, these benefits accrue only when a critical mass of different minority groups is present on campus.

APA also asserted that arguments against the continuing need for increased racial diversity in higher education do not withstand the crucible of empirical investigation. Especially dangerous are certain superficially plausible but empirically flawed theories that often reflect the same stereotypes and biases that diversity admissions policies serve to ameliorate. One example is the “academic mismatch” theory, which hypothesizes that relatively lower graduation rates among minority students admitted under race-conscious admissions programs result from an academic curriculum too rigorous for such students. APA noted that numerous studies have debunked the academic mismatch theory and shown that a university’s consideration of race as a factor in admissions narrows retention rate gaps between different student groups.

The scientific conclusions set forth in APA’s Fisher brief are grounded in 83 peer-reviewed studies reflecting the contemporary social science research on campus diversity. Nearly all of these studies have been conducted or published since the Court’s decision in Grutter in 2003, in which APA also filed a brief presenting the research that was current at that time.

On June 23, 2016 the Supreme Court held that the University of Texas' use of race as a consideration in the admissions process did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 4-3 majority. The Court held that the University of Texas' use of race as a factor in the holistic review used to fill the spots remaining after the Top Ten Percent Plan was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Previous precedent had established that educational diversity is a compelling interest as long as it is expressed as a concrete and precise goal that is neither a quote of minority students nor an amorphous idea of diversity. In this case, the Court determined that the University of Texas sufficiently expressed a series of concrete goals along with a reasoned explanation for its decision to pursue these goals along with a thoughtful consideration of why previous attempts to achieve the goals had not been successful. The University of Texas' plan is also narrowly tailored to serve this compelling interest because there are no other available and workable alternatives for doing so.