ALITO, J., dissenting
admissions policies, and it has generally employed race and ethnicity in the most aggressive manner permitted under controlling precedent.
Before 1997, race was considered directly as part of the general admissions process, and it was frequently a controlling factor. Admissions were based on two criteria: (1) the applicant’s Academic Index (AI), which was computed from standardized test scores and high school class rank, and (2) the applicant’s race. In 1996, the last year this race-conscious system was in place, 4.1% of enrolled freshmen were African-American, 14.7% were AsianAmerican, and 14.5% were Hispanic. Supp. App. 43a.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F. 3d 932 (1996), prohibited UT from using race in admis sions. In response to Hopwood, beginning with the 1997 admissions cycle, UT instituted a “holistic review” process in which it considered an applicant’s AI as well as a Per sonal Achievement Index (PAI) that was intended, among other things, to increase minority enrollment. The raceneutral PAI was a composite of scores from two essays and a personal achievement score, which in turn was based on a holistic review of an applicant’s leadership qualities, extracurricular activities, honors and awards, work expe rience, community service, and special circumstances. Special consideration was given to applicants from poor families, applicants from homes in which a language other than English was customarily spoken, and applicants from single-parent households. Because this race-neutral plan gave a preference to disadvantaged students, it had the effect of “disproportionately” benefiting minority candi dates. 645 F. Supp. 2d 587, 592 (WD Tex. 2009).
The Texas Legislature also responded to Hopwood. In 1997, it enacted the Top Ten Percent Plan, which man dated that UT admit all Texas seniors who rank in the top 10% of their high school classes. This facially race-neutral law served to equalize competition between students who
