Page:Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. (2016) (slip opinion).pdf/10

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Cite as: 579 U. S. ____ (2016)
7

Opinion of the Court

teristics so seldom provide a relevant basis for disparate treatment,” Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 505 (1989), “[r]ace may not be considered [by a university] unless the admissions process can withstand strict scru­tiny,” Fisher I, 570 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7). Strict scrutiny requires the university to demonstrate with clarity that its “ ‘purpose or interest is both constitutionally per­missible and substantial, and that its use of the classification is necessary . . . to the accomplishment of its pur­pose.’ ” Ibid.

Second, Fisher I confirmed that “the decision to pursue ‘the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity’ . . . is, in substantial measure, an academic judgment to which some, but not complete, judicial defer­ence is proper.” Id., at ___ (slip op, at 9). A university cannot impose a fixed quota or otherwise “define diversity as ‘some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin.’ ” Ibid. Once, however, a university gives “a reasoned, principled explanation” for its decision, deference must be given “to the University’s conclusion, based on its experience and expertise, that a diverse student body would serve its educational goals.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Third, Fisher I clarified that no deference is owed when determining whether the use of race is narrowly tailored to achieve the university’s permissible goals. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 10). A university, Fisher I explained, bears the burden of proving a “nonracial approach” would not promote its interest in the educational benefits of diversity “about as well and at tolerable administrative expense.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 11) (internal quotation marks omit­ted). Though “[n]arrow tailoring does not require exhaus­tion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative” or “require a university to choose between maintaining a reputation for excellence [and] fulfilling a commitment to provide educational opportunities to members of all racial