Page:Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. (2016) (slip opinion).pdf/55

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Cite as: 579 U. S. ____ (2016)
31

ALITO, J., dissenting

square with UT’s prior statements to this Court in the briefing and oral argument in Fisher I.[1] Moreover, al­though UT reframes its argument, it continues to assert that it needs affirmative action to admit privileged minori­ties. For instance, UT’s brief highlights its interest in admitting “[t]he black student with high grades from Andover.” Brief for Respondents 33. Similarly, at oral argument, UT claimed that its “interests in the educational benefits of diversity would not be met if all of [the] minority students were . . . coming from depressed socio­ economic backgrounds.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 53 (Dec. 9, 2015); see also id., at 43, 45.

Ultimately, UT’s intraracial diversity rationale relies on the baseless assumption that there is something wrong with African-American and Hispanic students admitted through the Top Ten Percent Plan, because they are “from the lower-performing, racially identifiable schools.” Id., at 43; see id., at 42–43 (explaining that “the basis” for UT’s

  1. Amici supporting UT certainly understood it to be arguing that it needs affirmative action to admit privileged minorities. See Brief for Six Educational Nonprofit Organizations 38 (citing Brief for Respondents in No. 11–345, p. 34). And UT’s amici continue to press the full-throated version of the argument. See Brief for Six Educational Non­ profit Organizations 12–13 (“Intraracial diversity . . . explodes perceived associations between racial groups and particular demographic characteristics, such as the ‘common stereotype of Black and Latina/o students[ ] that all students from these groups come from poor, inner-city backgrounds.’ Schools like UT combat such stereotypes by seeking to admit African-American and Latino students from elevated socioeco­nomic and/or non-urban backgrounds” (citation omitted)); id., at 15 (arguing that UT needs racial preferences to admit minority students from “elevated” “socioeconomic backgrounds,” because “such students are on a more equal social footing with the average non-minority stu­dent”); id., at 37–38 (“African-American and Latino students who may come from higher socioeconomic status . . . may serve as ‘debiasing agent[s],’ promoting disequilibrium to disrupt stereotypical associa­tions. These students are also likely to be better able to promote communication and integration on campus” (citation omitted)).