Overview of Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin

Abigail Fisher, a white Texas resident, filed suit against the University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin) upon being denied admission to the university in 2008. In her lawsuit, she claims that UT-Austin’s admissions policy, as it currently stands, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by including race as one component in evaluating applicants.

UT-Austin uses a two-pronged approach for in-state applicants. The first is mandated by the Top Ten Percent Law, which requires Texas public universities to accept applicants who are in the top 10% of their high school graduating class. Applicants who do not fall within this group are considered on two indices: the Academic Index and the Personal Achievement Index, the latter using race as one of several criteria. It is this portion of the admissions process that is being challenged in Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin. Thus far, the lower courts have upheld UT-Austin’s admissions policy.

What’s at Stake

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that the race-conscious admissions process used by the University of Michigan Law School was constitutional. The favorable ruling was based in part on social science research presented to the Court that highlighted the benefits of diversity in promoting student outcomes for majority and minority students and in preparing all students for a diverse workforce. Thus the Court found a compelling governmental interest in fostering a diverse student body.

From the perspective of legal precedent, current race-conscious admissions policies at UT-Austin and elsewhere that resemble the University of Michigan Law School policy do not violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In Fisher, a ruling in favor of UT-Austin would allow such policies to remain in place. A ruling against UT-Austin, however, would make it more difficult for students from minority and underrepresented groups to enroll in selective colleges and universities. As noted in the Fifth Circuit opinion in Fisher, between 1995 and 1997 African American enrollment dropped by 40% and Hispanic enrollment by 5% at UT-Austin after a previous race-conscious admissions policy at the University of Texas Law School was declared unconstitutional by the Fifth Circuit court in Hopwood v. Texas.

Implications

The ruling in this case will have a direct impact not only on affirmative action policies at public universities but on such policies in general. The social science research cited in Grutter, as well as that published since, indicates the benefits of diversity in educational settings. Many experts and policy makers have stated a need for the inclusion of minority students in professions of high employment demand, such as STEM, to enable the United States to compete in a global economy. Thus, universities will need to ensure that students from minority and underrepresented groups have the opportunity to study in these high-need disciplines. The challenge is particularly pressing given the growing segregation in K–12 schools and the changing demographics of the United States.

Regardless of the decision, the advance of the case to the Supreme Court may have a chilling effect on similar policies at other universities. This, in turn, may influence the quality of postsecondary studies available to students from minority and underrepresented groups. While those supporting Abigail Fisher claim that minority students admitted under racial criteria are often unprepared for the rigors of selective universities such as UT-Austin, research indicates that these students have a higher probability of graduating at selective institutions than at nonselective ones. In addition, data show that without race-conscious admissions, applications from and enrollment of minority students to flagship institutions decrease significantly.