This paper examines Fisher v. University of Texas, a landmark affirmative action case in which two white applicants challenged the university's race-conscious admissions policy as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The paper summarizes the plaintiffs' arguments, the university's defense based on precedent from Grutter v. Bollinger, and the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling, which found the policy constitutional but remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit for further review. It also weighs the broader benefits and drawbacks of affirmative action policies, concluding that the court's balanced ruling appropriately encourages more neutral admissions criteria.
Fisher v. University of Texas concerns two white students who were denied admission to the University of Texas in 2008. They believed the university had discriminated against them by placing excessive reliance on race as a factor in its admissions process. Both students sued the university, alleging that race was being used to give less-qualified candidates an advantage over other applicants and that more neutral indicators were available to determine the best-qualified students. ("Fisher v. Texas," 2013; Wermeil, 2011)
At the heart of the plaintiffs' argument was the claim that the university's admissions policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The policy also allegedly conflicted with Texas House Bill 588, which requires the University of Texas to accept any student who graduates in the top 10% of their high school class, regardless of race, creed, economic background, or social class.
Students who do not meet the top-10% threshold may still apply for admission based on a range of additional factors, including leadership qualities, talents, skills, grade point average (GPA), ACT/SAT scores, race, and family circumstances. Both plaintiffs had higher SAT scores and GPAs than the average admitted student, and both were active in their communities through volunteer service. They argued that race was given disproportionate weight compared to these other variables. ("Fisher v. Texas," 2013; Wermeil, 2011)
The university, for its part, maintained that its policy was in compliance with federal law, citing the precedent established in Grutter v. Bollinger. In that Supreme Court ruling, universities were permitted to use race as one factor among many in admissions decisions, on the grounds that racial diversity enriches the educational environment and better reflects broader population demographics. The University of Texas argued that minority enrollment remained comparatively low and that its race-conscious policy was necessary to provide students from different social, economic, and racial backgrounds with meaningful access to higher education. ("Fisher v. Texas," 2013; Wermeil, 2011)
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the university's admissions policy was not unconstitutional on its face. However, the Court remanded the case to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that the lower court had not applied sufficiently rigorous scrutiny to the question of whether the policy favored certain racial groups over others. The Court held that a new or revised policy would need to avoid undue emphasis on ethnicity. ("Fisher v. Texas," 2013; Wermeil, 2011)
To satisfy constitutional requirements, the Court directed the university to use race as a factor only when no workable race-neutral alternatives exist. The Fifth Circuit was charged with the responsibility of guiding the university in crafting a policy that could achieve diversity goals while meeting this standard. ("Fisher v. Texas," 2013; Wermeil, 2011)
"Policy expands opportunity but raises reverse-discrimination concerns"
"Ruling signals shift toward neutral admissions criteria"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.