October 10, 2012

UT at Supreme Court today

Fisher_SC_Powers_inside

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.






Share this Story:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • email
  • Print

113 Responses to “UT at Supreme Court today”

  1. Virginia says:

    For the teacher/student ratio to benefit students, and for the acreage of the campus and size of the buildings to be adequate, UT at Austin must restrict admissions. This hurts all those not admitted, how could it not be otherwise? (It does seem that a disproportionate amount of funding accrues to football, as someone above noted.) Our sympathy extends to all those not admitted.
    Any calculation of exclusion from admission that suggests any particular individual was not accepted because any other particular student was accepted seems grotesque and a misapplied calculation. Any of the rich basis for admission could hurt another. One plays football better. One plays the violin better, one has a brilliant math mind. Should UT be sued because these qualifications are discriminatory? Should the hurt of the student not admitted be better directed? UT is a good school but not the only good school. Everyone not admitted is hurt. All of those focus their energy on admission to another good school.
    It is certainly short-sighted of Fisher to not understand the richness of her experience in another school could help her blossom and lead to networks of benefits after graduation. It seems that she is either very short-sighted or is being manipulated.

  2. Marshall Pickett says:

    Using the same logic that Power’s employs, I think it’s time for a non-white president of the University of Texas. While we are at it, why aren’t any of the head coaches of the major sports non-white? Practice what you preach.

  3. John Walker says:

    Mr. Powers argument is not compelling. Brown v. the Board of Education found that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Fortunately I know no rational individuals who believe that this decision is a mistake.

    Fisher v. The University of Texas does not make such a fundamental argument. The notion of race is in fact quite fuzzy. Many biologists say that among humans, race has no taxonomic significance: all human being belong to the same species, Homo sapiens. Similarly the notion of “diversity” is far too abstract to be considered objectively. Along with race, The University wants to consider “family-income level” as another factor in its admission standards.

    Why does anyone want to consider factors over which the individual applying for admission has absolutely no control as “reasons” to determine their admission? Come on Mr. Powers just admit that your current policies are mixed-signal jibber-jabber that is part and parcel of this politically-correct generation. The fundamental issue at stake is whether an individual on their own merits can be given equitable consideration by public decision-makers. Including factors beyond those under the control of the applicant are way off base.

  4. Steve Krueger says:

    Reverse discrimination is just as bad as discrimination. I have talked to several alums this weekend and like me I was fortunate to have had a good career and have given to back to UT, but my plans for larger contributions ( I have no children) have been wiped out. Nice work on your part and the UT administration.