| Opinion/The Review

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Admissions & race: Lenient scrutiny

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

Monday, June 24, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

We're going to have to wait a while longer to learn if America's judicial system will honor the Equal Protection Clause and end feel-good, race-based college admissions.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vacated and remanded to a lower court the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. In a 7-1 ruling (with Justice Elena Kagan recused), the high court said the U.S. District Court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “did not hold the university to the demanding burden of strict scrutiny” required of it in prior rulings.

“Strict scrutiny does not permit a court to accept a school's assertion that its admissions process uses race in a permissible way without closely examining how the process works in practice,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. The lower courts deferred “to the university's good faith in its use of racial classifications,” he said.

It was in 2008 that Abigail Fisher, who is white, sued the school, claiming she was denied admission in favor of a less-qualified minority.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas was more forthright, calling the school's practice “racial discrimination ... categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th Amendment.

And should the appellate court apply the required “strict scrutiny” standard as the high court now has ordered, the last vestiges of discrimination in the name of ending discrimination should be on the road to being erased.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Editorials

  1. Kittanning Laurels & Lances
  2. Saturday essay: Garden chances
  3. The wind ruse: A failed policy
  4. Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
  5. The Connellsville Redevelopment Authority: Facts & findings
  6. Jamestown revealed: History comes alive
  7. The Box
  8. Dodd-Frank turns 5: What a mess
  9. Regional growth
  10. Yes, the IRS targeted conservatives
  11. Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes