High court limits race as criteria in college admissions
WASHINGTON — Affirmative action in college admissions survived Supreme Court review on Monday in a consensus decision that avoided the difficult constitutional issues surrounding a challenge to the University of Texas admission plan.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the court's 7-1 ruling that said a court should approve the use of race as a factor in admissions only after it concludes “that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.”
But the decision did not question the underpinnings of affirmative action, which the high court last reaffirmed in 2003.
The justices said the federal appeals court in New Orleans did not apply the highest level of judicial scrutiny when it upheld the Texas plan, which uses race as one among many factors in admitting about a quarter of the university's incoming freshmen. The school gives the bulk of the slots to Texans who are admitted based on their high school class rank, without regard to race.
The high court ordered the appeals court to take another look at the case of Abigail Fisher, a white Texan who was not offered a spot at the university's flagship Austin campus in 2008. Fisher has since received her undergraduate degree from Louisiana State University.
Asking a lower court to review the case doesn't mean the court discards its prior rulings on affirmative action, said Ken Gormley, dean of Duquesne University's School of Law.
The decision seems to reaffirm 1978 and 2003 rulings that threw out raced-based quotas but held that race could be a factor in plans to boost diversity in college admissions, Gormley said.
“The court put additional teeth into its strict scrutiny test” for affirmative action in higher education, Gormley said.
The ruling might not cause any Pennsylvania schools to reconsider admissions policies.
A Penn State spokeswoman said the university does not consider race or ethnicity in admissions; the University of Pittsburgh said it considers a number of factors in seeking diversity. A spokesman for the 14 universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education said its diversity policies do not resemble those in the suit.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the lone dissenter in the decision. “In my view, the courts below adhered to this court's pathmarking decisions and there is no need for a second look,” Ginsburg said in a dissent she read aloud.
Justice Clarence Thomas, alone on the court, said he would have overturned the high court's 2003 ruling, though he went along with the outcome on Monday.
Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she worked in the Justice Department.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Damaged Jersey shore pier to be rebuilt
- Supreme Court allows Obamacare’s Medicare costs board to stand
- Military leaders leery of letting in transgenders
- GOP budget proposal guts federal spending, health care
- Experts skeptical of N.D.’s new oil train safety checks
- Indiana governor wants changes to religious-objection law
- Mysteries of dark matter come to light in Science study
- A revolt is growing as more people refuse to pay back student loans
- Appalachian miners wiped out by coal glut they can’t reverse
- Benghazi panel formally requests private interview with Hillary