Texas: Racial Preferences Now, Racial Preferences Forever!

University of Texas has filed its main brief
in Fisher v. University of Texas, and it’s a doozy. It argues, among
other oddities,

  • that
    the continuing “underrepresentation” of blacks and Hispanics requires the
    continued use of racial preferences to increase their numbers, but that the
    reason for increasing their numbers has nothing to do with increasing their
    numbers; it is necessary only because the “diversity” they provide is essential
    for the “acquisition of competencies required of future leaders”;
  • that
    assessing “the educational benefits flowing from student body diversity” might
    seem “amorphous,” but “trained educators” are competent to do so and courts
    should defer to their expertise;
  • that
    because Texas has no specific “race-based target” it should be allowed
    virtually unlimited latitude to give as much weight to race as it chooses;
  • that
    race-based preferences are necessary to combat racial stereotypes, presumably
    including the stereotype that minorities are incapable of succeeding without
    race-based preferences;
  • that
    not only is it too soon to limit or overturn Grutter; it will always be
    too soon because there are still “thousands of classes” where blacks and
    Hispanics are “nearly non-existent” and “diversity” is required not just
    institution-wide but in all classes.

discuss these and other aspects of the brief in more detail here.


One thought on “Texas: Racial Preferences Now, Racial Preferences Forever!”

  1. The case for “affirmative action” in college admissions, it occurs to me, shares something in common with just about all other government programs: the benefits (if any at all) are vastly magnified by proponents, while the costs are underestimated or completely overlooked.
    Federal “green” investments, government housing programs, ethanol subsidies, minimum wage legislation, agricultural price supports, mass transit programs, diversity initiatives, and on and on — look carefully and you always find that advocates overstate the benefits and understate the costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *