With midterms swamping me, I just now had the opportunity to read the case that flooded people’s Facebook feeds everywhere. It is an interesting case, to say the least. However, the implications are quite ambiguous, and the outcome will more than likely depend on the temperament of the Supreme Court when they review it.

Anyway, here’s the way I see this case:

What didn’t happen

With all due respect toward Ms. Fisher, let me be very clear that the University of Texas did not, in any way, shape, or form, discriminate against you. Texas is one of the original eight “Public Ivy League Schools,” and if you were not able to gain admittance to Texas by being in the top ten percent of your high school class, then you certainly would not have gained admittance to the actual Ivy League schools to which we compare ourselves. (That is, I’m not sure Harvard accepts many people who graduate outside the top ten percent of their class either.) Furthermore, if you had put in a comparable good faith effort into trying to get into the top ten percent of your high school class, then I am sure your Personal Achievement Index, which is very clearly outlined in the case, would have reflected that. Therefore, as hurtful as it may sound, you were not accepted into the University of Texas because you did not meet the admission standards, not because you were discriminated against in any way.

What may happen

What may happen is very tricky because most of the laws that we are dealing with were intended to be temporary. In Grutter, the case that Fisher’s case relies very heavily upon, Sandra Day O’Connor writes that she hopes many of the affirmative action-type laws will be temporary and unnecessary a generation from now. The idea is that the discriminatory way of thinking would disappear by then. That being said, the Top Ten Percent Rule will go away at some point in the future. The question is when and whether we expected this day to come so soon.

The Top Ten Percent Rule is in place for two purposes: (1) to mimic the demographics of the state into the university and (2) prevent racial discrimination in the admissions process by using a merit-based method of admitting students. Today, 90% of students admitted to UT are Texas residents; 81% come in from the Top Ten Percent Rule, while the other 9% are evaluated using an algorithm. The Personal Achievement Index (PAI) is calculated and compared to students within the top ten percent admittees, and they are selected from there. Race plays a minimal rule in calculating PAI.

Grutter says it is okay for universities to say they want diversity as part of the educational experience, and the case allows universities to look at race in determining the extent of that. So what’s the issue? The Top Ten Percent Rule does not look at those applicants individually but instead uses a blanket approach. In other words, UT is not looking at applicants individually to try to reach the “critical mass” numbers (the mirroring of the demographics), but instead using an approach that tries to automatically do that and seeing what happens. (This is what happens in substance now since 81% of admittees are admitted under this rule.) Thus, the question is whether this passive approach is what Grutter intended.

What I think

(I know—everyone’s least favorite part.) The merit of Fisher’s case is weak, since I think she didn’t meet UT standards. Whether I think the Top Ten Percent Rule is unconstitutional is another. It is definitely put in place as a passive affirmative action technique, and I am generally not in favor of affirmative action. However, the passiveness to me does not make me opposed to the rule necessarily. The requirements to get into UT are made clear to high school students (at least in my high school), and I remember clearly knowing that to get into UT, I needed to be in the top ten percent of my class. Being a public university and being partly-subsidized by taxpayer dollars, it was nice to know exactly what I needed to do on the merit side of the equation to get in. This allows me to compete for the spot and not worry about being discriminated against.

Would we still need this rule for its original intended purpose a generation from now? Probably not. Do I think it provides clear criteria for Texas residents? Yes. Substance over form? Absolutely. Because this is a public institution, a certain amount of Texas residents should get in because we paid for it. It would be hard to imagine that too many people outside the top ten percent of their high school would be admitted if the rule was taken away. In order to maintain our status as a first class university and our comparability to peer institutions, we have to remain somewhat selective of who we admit. Thus, I am not sure that the makeup of students would change much. What would change is how they’re admitted, and if the university is still seeking the diversity that it is today, it would look at race as part of the process instead of leaving it up to Texas demographics themselves. Until the day that Justice O’Connor was hoping for comes, race would continue to be a factor in the admissions process. Do you think it should? As indicated in a previous blog, I believe in “economic freedom,” which I defined as your choices dictating how your life progresses. So I like competition. If you meet the academic standards of the university, you should be accepted. Is it wrong for a university to want diversity in the classroom? It seems clear that a university wants diversity to enhance educational experience. If it feels that that diversity will make the education better, then it also has the freedom to make that decision. It just needs to be prepared that if that decision is not based on proper merit, then it will be exposed.

Final Thoughts

I typically do not want to touch topics such as this, but it is clear that discrimination was not a factor in Ms. Fisher’s application rejection. And while I do want to see and love the diversity on campus, let it be known that my peers have also earned the right to be here and were not admitted because of some affirmative action rule. Freedom is freedom, and your actions and choices should be what dictate your next set of actions and choices. With that, I wish everyone a great Spring Break. (Hopefully the Horns will be dancing this year!)