UT admission policy upheld
Court that banned use of race now cites Supreme Court case.
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/ut-admission-policy-upheld-1194515.html
[For decision, go to: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-50822-CV0.wpd.pdf ]
By Ralph K.M. Haurwitz
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011
In 1996, a federal appeals court effectively banned affirmative action in admissions at the University of Texas in a case known as Hopwood. On Tuesday, the same court reversed course, ruling that the university's consideration of race and ethnicity passes constitutional muster.
What changed? In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld affirmative action at the University of Michigan's law school, essentially setting aside the Hopwood ruling.
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited the Michigan case in affirming a 2009 decision by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin to uphold UT's admissions policy, which was challenged by two white students who were denied acceptance. The 5th Circuit judges, based in New Orleans, unanimously agreed with Sparks that the policy avoids quotas, is narrowly tailored and otherwise meets standards set by the high court in the Michigan case.
"We're very pleased," said Patti Ohlendorf, UT's vice president for legal affairs. "The university always has maintained that our undergraduate admissions policy is constitutional and follows the guidance of the Supreme Court."
The ruling will be appealed, either to a panel of all 5th Circuit judges or to the Supreme Court, said Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, which opposes the use of race in public policy.
"We argue that the 5th Circuit got it right the first time but was overruled by the Supreme Court," Blum said. "It's now our belief that the 5th Circuit got it wrong and will eventually be overruled by the Supreme Court."
The plaintiffs — Abigail Fisher and Rachel Michalewicz — contend that the university had no right to consider race and ethnicity since it already had a program in place to boost minority enrollment.
That program, which the Texas Legislature enacted in 1997 in response to the Hopwood ruling, allows a student graduating in the top 10 percent of a Texas high school to attend any public university in the state. The law was changed slightly two years ago to give UT a bit more control over admissions.
Writing for the appeals court panel, Judge Patrick Higginbotham said UT's consideration of race and ethnicity — along with other factors such as special talents, extracurricular activities and family circumstances — fits easily within Supreme Court guidelines. But he added a cautionary note:
"In this dynamic environment, our conclusions should not be taken to mean that UT is immune from its obligation to recalibrate its dual systems of admissions as needed, and we cannot bless the university's race-conscious admissions program in perpetuity."
Judge Emilio Garza, in a concurring opinion, wrote that although the UT policy complies with Supreme Court guidance, the high court erred in the Michigan case, "and only the Court can rectify the error."
Court that banned use of race now cites Supreme Court case.
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/ut-admission-policy-upheld-1194515.html
[For decision, go to: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-50822-CV0.wpd.pdf ]
By Ralph K.M. Haurwitz
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011
In 1996, a federal appeals court effectively banned affirmative action in admissions at the University of Texas in a case known as Hopwood. On Tuesday, the same court reversed course, ruling that the university's consideration of race and ethnicity passes constitutional muster.
What changed? In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld affirmative action at the University of Michigan's law school, essentially setting aside the Hopwood ruling.
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited the Michigan case in affirming a 2009 decision by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin to uphold UT's admissions policy, which was challenged by two white students who were denied acceptance. The 5th Circuit judges, based in New Orleans, unanimously agreed with Sparks that the policy avoids quotas, is narrowly tailored and otherwise meets standards set by the high court in the Michigan case.
"We're very pleased," said Patti Ohlendorf, UT's vice president for legal affairs. "The university always has maintained that our undergraduate admissions policy is constitutional and follows the guidance of the Supreme Court."
The ruling will be appealed, either to a panel of all 5th Circuit judges or to the Supreme Court, said Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, which opposes the use of race in public policy.
"We argue that the 5th Circuit got it right the first time but was overruled by the Supreme Court," Blum said. "It's now our belief that the 5th Circuit got it wrong and will eventually be overruled by the Supreme Court."
The plaintiffs — Abigail Fisher and Rachel Michalewicz — contend that the university had no right to consider race and ethnicity since it already had a program in place to boost minority enrollment.
That program, which the Texas Legislature enacted in 1997 in response to the Hopwood ruling, allows a student graduating in the top 10 percent of a Texas high school to attend any public university in the state. The law was changed slightly two years ago to give UT a bit more control over admissions.
Writing for the appeals court panel, Judge Patrick Higginbotham said UT's consideration of race and ethnicity — along with other factors such as special talents, extracurricular activities and family circumstances — fits easily within Supreme Court guidelines. But he added a cautionary note:
"In this dynamic environment, our conclusions should not be taken to mean that UT is immune from its obligation to recalibrate its dual systems of admissions as needed, and we cannot bless the university's race-conscious admissions program in perpetuity."
Judge Emilio Garza, in a concurring opinion, wrote that although the UT policy complies with Supreme Court guidance, the high court erred in the Michigan case, "and only the Court can rectify the error."
Last edited:
