SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The University of Texas at Austin ("UT") has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body that justifies the consideration of race in its admissions. See Grutter, 539 U.S. at 325. Indeed, diversity is a compelling government interest in a number of other contexts as well, including the selection of our future military leadership, the selection of leaders of Executive Branch agencies, and the selection of federal and state judges. Accordingly, the Court's resolution of this case should be informed by these broader concerns and the need for clear guidance from this Court about how race, ethnicity, and gender can be taken into account in government programs in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution.
The Court, in Grutter, formulated a sound method for taking account of an applicant's race as part of a lawful effort to achieve diversity. This method forbids the use of quotas but permits diversity goals based on a good-faith effort to come within a range demarcated by the goal itself. It requires each applicant to be evaluated as an individual and compared with all other candidates for the position(s). The method allows race to be considered as a "plus" factor as part of a holistic review of each applicant's file that does not make race determinative or give it a predetermined weight, and which gives substantial weight to other diversity factors as well. See 539 U.S. at 335-38. This methodology is logical, straightforward and readily enforceable.
UT considered appropriate benchmarks in formulating its admissions program. While eschewing any numerical goals for the admission of minority students, UT concluded that African-Americans and Hispanics are underrepresented in its student-body in comparison to state demographics. Thus, they are eligible to have their race considered as a diversity "plus" factor when their applications are reviewed. "First Amendment interests give universities particular latitude in defining diversity." Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 792 (2007) (Kennedy, J., concurring). This Court has approved diversity goals that constitute "reasonable aspirations" for correcting underrepresentation. See Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, 480 U.S. 616, 635 (1987). UT's use of state demographics as a benchmark is clearly reasonable for a state university. Furthermore, UT's effort to increase diversity at the classroom level, as well as the student body level, is also reasonable. The Court has recognized that multiple benchmarks may be appropriate to measure underrepresentation in a refined manner, such as by job categories rather than by reference to the overall workforce. See id.
UT concluded that its existing practice of admitting the top 10% of graduates from every Texas high school was not producing sufficient diversity in its incoming class. Under Grutter, UT could have scrapped this race-neutral "percentage plan" and implemented a race-conscious methodology for all of its admissions without violating the Equal Protection Clause. Instead, it chose to retain the percentage plan for most of its admissions and implement a race-conscious process for only 20-30% of its admissions. UT not only gave good faith consideration to a race-neutral method but adopted that approach to the maximum extent that it deemed workable as part of an overall plan to achieve its various admissions goals.
Petitioner asks the Court to second-guess the judgment of UT and the Texas legislature and rule, in essence, that the top 10% approach produces "enough diversity" so that it precludes UT from using any race-conscious component to help fulfill its diversity goals. This argument contravenes this Court's tradition of giving a degree of deference to a university's academic decisions, including the selection of its student body. See Grutter, 539 U.S. at 328-29. Accepting this argument would undermine the "narrow tailoring" of race-conscious admissions programs and experimentation with race-neutral alternatives. The lesson drawn by other universities would be to employ an entirely race-conscious methodology if they want to preserve some leeway to conduct individualized assessments to assemble a well-rounded, diverse student body. Universities would be discouraged from developing and using race-neutral admissions approaches in combination with race-conscious approaches.
No comments:
Post a Comment