In 2016, in its last major case on affirmative action in higher education, the Supreme Court upheld a side of an idiosyncratic admissions program on the University of Texas at Austin. In the method, it reaffirmed the excellence the courtroom had drawn in earlier instances: that numerical quotas have been illegal however that taking account of race as one issue amongst many to realize instructional range was permissible.

The case was introduced by Abigail Fisher, a white pupil who stated the University of Texas had denied her admission due to her race.

In Texas, college students in roughly the highest 10 p.c of their excessive faculties have been mechanically admitted to the general public college system. That coverage didn’t contemplate race however elevated racial range partially as a result of so many excessive faculties within the state have been racially homogeneous.

Ms. Fisher simply missed that cutoff at her highschool in Sugar Land, Texas, after which entered a separate pool of candidates who have been admitted by means of a system during which race performed a task.

Ms. Fisher argued that Texas couldn’t have it each methods. Having enacted a race-neutral program to extend minority admissions, she stated, Texas couldn’t complement it with a race-conscious one.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for almost all, upheld the race-conscious program, saying that courts should give universities substantial however not complete leeway in devising their admissions applications.

“A university is in large part defined by those intangible ‘qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness,’” Justice Kennedy wrote, quoting from a landmark desegregation case. “Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission.”

“But still,” he added, “it remains an enduring challenge to our nation’s education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity.”