Court rules for UT Austin in Fisher case

Commencement 2013 Saturday evening

This afternoon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit announced its decision in the case of Fisher vs. the University of Texas at Austin, which had been remanded to the Fifth Circuit by the Supreme Court last summer. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit found in favor of UT Austin. I am very gratified that the Court’s ruling recognizes the constitutionality of the University’s admission policy under the Supreme Court’s recent guidance.

In its decision, the majority wrote, “It is equally settled that universities may use race as part of a holistic admissions program where it cannot otherwise achieve diversity.” The court continued, “This interest is compelled by the reality that university education is more the shaping of lives than the filling of heads with facts — the classic assertion of the humanities.”

We remain committed to assembling a student body at The University of Texas at Austin that brings with it the educational benefits of diversity while respecting the rights of all students. This ruling ensures that our campus, our state, and the entire nation will benefit from the exchange of ideas and thoughts that happens when students who are diverse in all regards come together in the classroom, at campus events, and in all aspects of campus life.

Bill's Signature

Supreme Court returns Fisher case to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals



This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Fisher v. The University of Texas at Austin, in which the plaintiff challenged any consideration of race in the admissions process. The University’s policy considers race as one among many factors in a holistic review of applicants who are not admitted automatically by the state’s Top 10 Percent Law.

Today, the Court vacated and remanded the Fisher case back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that the lower court had not applied a strict enough standard when it found in favor of the University. It is important to note that the Court did not prohibit the use of race in admissions, as the current law permits. Today’s ruling has no impact on admissions decisions we have already made or any immediate impact on our holistic admissions policy.

For many years, The University of Texas at Austin has been a leading advocate for diversity in higher education. As we argued before the Court, we believe a diverse student body is critical to the education of all students. It creates a rich learning environment that prepares young people for life in an increasingly global society. Because we remain convinced of this truth, and because diversity is critical to our becoming America’s best public university, we will continue to defend our policy.

Thank you for all the ways you support our core purpose of transforming lives for the benefit of society.

Bill's Signature

UT at Supreme Court today


I’d like to share with you an op-ed I wrote for today’s Wall Street Journal regarding our Supreme Court case:

Bill Powers: An Admissions Policy That Prizes Diversity

History repeats itself Wednesday in an eerie but ironic way, as the University of Texas goes before the ­Supreme Court to defend its consideration of race in admissions. UT last did so 62 years ago, when Heman Sweatt, an African-American postal worker from Houston, challenged the university’s consideration of race.

Sweatt, of course, had been denied admission because of his race. The university lost that case—but America won. UT became one of the first flagship universities in the former Confederacy to integrate, and Sweatt paved the way for the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision integrating all of public education and forever banishing the fiction of separate but equal.

This time, UT finds itself back in court superficially for the same reason—considering race in admissions—but with just the opposite motivation. While our 1950 policy aimed to keep certain people out, our 2012 policy is aimed at permitting more of their grandchildren to enter.

The crux of this week’s case, Fisher v. The University of Texas, isn’t whether diversity is good. The vast majority of Americans now understand that diversity isn’t only acceptable but desirable in all aspects of life, especially education. In my 38 years in the classroom, I often have seen how a diverse classroom enriches discussion, provides valuable insights and offers a deeper learning experience. After all, how can a homogenous environment prepare students to be effective citizens of a diverse world?

Rather, the question at the heart of this case is whether any consideration of race, no matter how slight, is constitutional. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that the educational benefits of a diverse student body are so compelling that race can be considered as one of many factors. In the opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that the constitution “does not prohibit the [University of Michigan] Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” Surely nine short years have not obliterated this logic.

If the fiction dispelled by the Sweatt case was that education could be separate but equal, the fiction that will be dispelled by Fisher is that minority students are being admitted at the expense of more qualified white students. There are no unqualified students admitted to UT—to the contrary, admission is more competitive than ever.

About three-fourths of our students are automatically admitted by virtue of their high-school class rank. Even for those students we use a holistic review to determine whether they will be admitted to a particular college or school. For the rest, we employ an entirely holistic review in which race is one of many factors along with leadership, extracurricular activities, awards, work experience, family-income level and community service.

As a result, UT is fully compliant with Grutter and earlier decisions that acknowledge the importance of diversity and permit race to be one factor among many. Our policy doesn’t strive to achieve a quota or demographic target.

Diversity benefits all students, as the court rightly affirmed in Grutter, but that is only the beginning of its benefit to society. Preparing young people to lead in an increasingly global civilization also pays dividends for employers, organizations, governments, communities and everyone who is served by our graduates as they leave the academy to make a difference in the world.