Abigail Fisher applied to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 and was denied admission. The university’s admission policy included a 'Top Ten Percent Plan,' which guaranteed admission to Texas students in the top ten percent of their high school class. For students not admitted under this plan, including Fisher, the university considered several factors, including race, as part of its holistic admissions process. Fisher, a white applicant, argued that the use of race in this manner violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was heard by the Supreme Court twice, first in 2013 (Fisher I) and again in 2016 (Fisher II), with the latter resulting in the Court upholding the University of Texas’s admissions policy.
Does the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in its admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Under the Equal Protection Clause, government programs that classify individuals based on race must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest and can only survive if they pass strict scrutiny.
The Supreme Court held that the University of Texas at Austin’s consideration of race as part of a holistic admissions process met the strict scrutiny standard and was constitutional.
The Court reasoned that the University of Texas had a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. It also found that the university’s admissions policy was narrowly tailored to achieve this interest, as race was only one factor among many considered in the holistic review process. The decision was further supported by the finding that the university continually assessed and refined its admissions processes to ensure that race was not used more than necessary to achieve diversity. The Court emphasized deference to the University’s academic judgment about the educational value of diversity.
Fisher v. University of Texas is significant as it reaffirms the principles set forth in prior affirmative action cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger. It clarifies the application of strict scrutiny to race-conscious admissions policies and serves as a guide for universities seeking to implement similar policies. For law students, this case is a cornerstone for understanding affirmative action's constitutional dimensions and provides insight into judicial reasoning about equal protection.
Fisher v. University of Texas serves as a critical checkpoint in the ongoing judicial narrative on affirmative action in educational settings. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the nuanced application of constitutional principles to complex societal issues, reaffirming the possibility of using race-conscious measures to promote diversity if implemented appropriately. For law students, Fisher offers a profound exploration of equal protection jurisprudence, emphasizing how constitutional mandates can coexist with public policy objectives aimed at correcting historical inequities. The decision illustrates the importance of carefully designed policies that address compelling interests with precision and foresight.