No. 11-345

In the Supreme Court of the United States

ABIGAIL NOEL FISHER, PETITIONER

v.

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARITO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS

JEH CHARLES JOHNSONGeneral CounselDepartment of DefenseWashington, D.C. 20301

PHILIP H. ROSENFELTDeputy General CounselDepartment of EducationWashington, D.C. 20202

WILLIAM B. SCHULTZActing General CounselDepartment of Health and

Human Services Washington, D.C. 20201

CAMERON F. KERRYGeneral CounselDepartment of CommerceWashington, D.C. 20230

M. PATRICIA SMITHSolicitor of LaborDepartment of LaborWashington, D.C. 20210

DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR.Solicitor General

Counsel of RecordTHOMAS E. PEREZ

Assistant Attorney GeneralEDWIN S. KNEEDLER

Deputy Solicitor GeneralGINGER D. ANDERS

Assistant to the SolicitorGeneral

DIANA K. FLYNNSHARON M. MCGOWAN

Attorneys Department of JusticeWashington, D.C. 20530-0001SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov(202) 514-2217

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the University of Texas at Austin’s use ofrace as one of several diversity considerations in a holis-tic analysis of individual applicants violates the EqualProtection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(I)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Interest of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Summary of argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Argument:

I. The United States has a critical interest in ensuringthat educational institutions are able to provide theeducational benefits of diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8A. The Court has recognized that institutions

of higher education have a compelling in-terest in attaining a diverse student body . . . . . . . 8

B. The United States military and federalagencies have recognized the importance ofthe educational benefits of diversity . . . . . . . . . . . 101. The United States armed services have a

strong interest in a well-qualified and di-verse officer corps, and the educationalbenefits of diversity are critical to servingthat interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. Well-qualified and diverse graduates arecritical to other national interests . . . . . . . . . 15

II. The University’s consideration of race in admissionsis constitutional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17A. The University’s admissions policy is sup-

ported by a compelling interest in attainingthe benefits of diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

B. Considering race as one factor in the holisticcomponent of the University’s admissionsprocess was necessary to serve the Univer-sity’s compelling interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

(III)

IV

Table of Contents—Continued: Page

C. The University’s admissions policy is nar-rowly tailored . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) . . . . . . . . . passim

Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir.),cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1033 (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist.No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 27, 30, 31, 35

Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) . . . . . . . 8, 9, 20, 21, 30

Constitution and statutes:

U.S. Const. Amend. XIV (Equal Protection Clause) . . . 1, 4

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Tit. VI, 42 U.S.C. 2000det seq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 4

Minority Health and Health Disparities ResearchEducation Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-525, § 2, 114 Stat. 2495-2497 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

10 U.S.C. 4342 (2006 & Supp. IV 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

10 U.S.C. 6954 (2006 & Supp. IV 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

10 U.S.C. 9342 (2006 & Supp. IV 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

20 U.S.C. 1070a-15 (2006 & Supp. IV 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

42 U.S.C. 293(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

42 U.S.C. 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

42 U.S.C. 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

42 U.S.C. 2000c-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 51.803 (West 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

V

Miscellaneous: Page

Committee on Understanding & Eliminating Racial& Ethnic Disparities in Health Care, Inst. of Med.of the Nat’l Acads., Unequal Treatment: Con-fronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in HealthCare (Brian D. Smedley et al. eds., 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . 16

75 Fed. Reg. (Dec. 15, 2010):

p. 78,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

p. 78,508 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Gidget Fuentes, SEALs Reach Out to Increase Di-versity, NavyTimes, Apr. 30, 2012, http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/04/navy-special-forces-seals-diversity-043012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Def., Lecture at DukeUniversity: All-Volunteer Force (Sept. 29, 2010),http://www.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1508 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Lt. Gen. Michael C. Gould, U.S. Air Force Acad. Su-perintendent, USAFA Diversity Plan (June 2009),http://www.usafa.edu/superintendent/diversityoffice/links/AFD-110316-012.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Military Leadership Diversity Comm’n, Final Re-port, From Representation to Inclusion: Diver-sity Leadership for the 21st-Century Military(Mar. 15, 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12

VI

Miscellaneous—Continued: Page

Robert S. Mueller III, Dir., U.S. Fed. Bureau of In-vestigation, Speech at the Nat’l Conf. of the Histor-ically Black Colls. & Univs.: FBI Diversity Em-ployment in a New Age of Global Terror (Sept. 17,2002), http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/fbi-diversity-employment-in-a-new-age-of-global-ter-ror/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Adm. Michael G. Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs ofStaff, The National Military Strategy of theUnited States of America (Feb. 8, 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Bernard C. Nalty, Strength for the Fight: A Historyof Black Americans in the Military (Free Press1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Office for Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, U.S. Dep’t ofHomeland Sec., MD-715, EEO Program StatusReport (FY 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Office of the Under Sec’y of Def. Pers. & Readiness,U.S. Dep’t of Def., Career Progression of Minorityand Women Officers (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Rear Adm. Sandra L. Stosz, U.S. Coast Guard Acad.Superintendent, Coast Guard Academy Admis-sions Statement (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Marta Tienda & Sunny Xinchun Niu, Capitalizing onSegregation, Pretending Neutrality: College Ad-missions and the Texas Top 10% Law, 8 Am. L. & Econ. Rev. 312 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

University of Tex. at Austin, College of LiberalArts—Academic Units, www.utexas.edu/cola/resources/offices/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

VII

Miscellaneous—Continued: Page

U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, TheAmerican Community—Hispanics: 2004 (Feb.2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

U.S. Dep’t of Def., Diversity and Inclusion StrategicPlan—2012 to 2017 (2012), https://diversity.defense.gov/docs/DoD_Diversity_Strategic_Plan_%20final_as%20of%2019%20%Apr%2012[1].pdf . . 10, 12

U.S. Dep’ts of Education and Justice, Guidance onthe Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity inPostsecondary Education, http://www2.ed.gov/about/ offices/list/ocr/docs/guidance-pse-201111.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., SecretarialStatement on National Minority Health Month2012 (Apr. 2, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., DHS Funding Oppor-tunity Announcement: 2012 Scientific Leader-ship Awards for Minority Serving InstitutionsGranting Bachelor Degrees, http://www.grants.gov/search/search.do?mode=VIEW&oppId=141033 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

In the Supreme Court of the United States

No. 11-345

ABIGAIL NOEL FISHER, PETITIONER

v.

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARITO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS

INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES

The United States has significant responsibilities forthe enforcement of the Equal Protection Clause of theFourteenth Amendment in the context of institutions ofhigher learning, see 42 U.S.C. 2000c-6, and for the en-forcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42U.S.C. 2000d et seq., which prohibits discrimination onthe basis of race, color or national origin by recipientsof federal funds, including institutions of higher educa-tion. Numerous federal agencies—including the Depart-ments of Defense, Justice, Education, Commerce, La-bor, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Ser-vices, among others—have concluded that well-qualifiedand diverse graduates are crucial to the fulfillment oftheir missions. The United States thus has a strong in-

(1)

2

terest in the development of the law regarding the con-sideration of race and ethnicity in admissions in highereducation.

STATEMENT

1. The University of Texas at Austin (the Univer-sity) is the flagship institution of Texas’s public univer-sity system. Pet. App. 119a. The University is a selec-tive institution, and its admissions policy reflects twodecades of evolution and experimentation.

a. Until 1996, the University admitted undergradu-ates by considering each applicant’s Academic Index(AI)—a projection of freshman academic performance—and race. Pet. App. 120a; S.J.A. 41a. In 1996, theFifth Circuit invalidated that policy. Hopwood v. Texas,78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1033 (1996).

In 1997, the University began using a PersonalAchievement Index (PAI) to supplement the AI. ThePAI is a numerical score based on a “holistic review ofapplications,” including essays, leadership, extracurricu-lar activities, work experience, socioeconomic status,language spoken at home, and other similar characteris-tics. Pet. App. 121a; S.J.A. 41a.

Beginning with the entering class of 1998, the Uni-versity implemented House Bill 588, Tex. Educ. CodeAnn. § 51.803 (West 1997), also known as the Top TenPercent law (Top Ten plan). J.A. 259a. The Top Tenplan grants public-university admission to Texas highschool graduates who are in the top ten percent of theirclass. Pet. App. 123a. After admitting applicantsthrough the Top Ten plan, the University filled the re-mainder of its entering class using its AI/PAI analysis.

b. In 2004, following this Court’s approval of theUniversity of Michigan Law School’s consideration of

3

race in individual admissions decisions, see Grutter v.Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), the University concludedthat considering race in some individual admissions deci-sions was necessary to achieve the educational benefitsof diversity. Pet. App. 125a-126a; S.J.A. 1a, 23a-24a.

The University explained that its educational missionincludes “produc[ing] graduates who are capable of ful-filling the future leadership needs of Texas” and who are“able to lead a multicultural workforce and to communi-cate policy to a diverse electorate.” S.J.A. 24a. TheUniversity concluded that African Americans and His-panics were currently underrepresented in its studentbody, which resulted in a marked lack of diversity in theclassroom. S.J.A. 24a-26a. As a result, “the University[was] less able to provide an educational setting thatfosters cross-racial understanding, provides enlighteneddiscussion and learning, and prepares students to func-tion in an increasingly diverse workforce and society.”S.J.A. 25a. In addition, “significant differences betweenthe racial and ethnic makeup” of the student body andthe State’s population meant that “students at the Uni-versity [were] currently being educated in a less-than-realistic environment that is not conducive to trainingthe leaders of tomorrow.” S.J.A. 24a-25a.

c. The University first used its current admissionspolicy, which permits officers to consider individual ap-plicants’ race as one factor among many, in the selectionof the 2005 entering class. J.A. 432a-433a. After admit-ting applicants through the Top Ten plan, the Universityevaluates remaining applicants based on their AI andPAI scores. In calculating the PAI score, in order to“establish[] a contextual background for the student’sachievements,” officials may consider an applicant’s racein addition to the factors adopted in 1997. S.J.A. 29a;

4

J.A. 208a-209a, 432a-434a. Race is not considered inisolation or given independent weight. S.J.A. 29a. Toensure consistent PAI scoring, admissions officers un-dergo rigorous training. J.A. 117a-118a; S.J.A. 28a; Bre-men Dep. 27-28.

Once the AI and PAI scores are calculated, they areplotted on a matrix representing the school or major towhich the applicants seek admission. Each cell containsall applicants with a particular AI/PAI combination.Admissions officers establish a cut-off that divides thematrix along a stair-step line. Applicants whose scoresplace them in cells above the cut-off line are admitted.J.A. 411a-412a; see J.A. 420a.

2. Petitioner, a white applicant denied admission tothe University in 2008, brought this action, alleging thatthe University discriminated against her on the basis ofrace in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42U.S.C. 1981, 1983, and 2000d et seq. Pet. App. 117a-118a.

The district court granted summary judgment torespondents. Pet. App. 115a-171a.

3. The court of appeals affirmed. Pet. App. 1a-114a.The court held that the University “has a compellinginterest in obtaining the educational benefits of diver-sity” and that its policy satisfies the constitutional stan-dards set forth in Grutter. Id. at 3a, 33a; Grutter, 539U.S. at 328-343. The court rejected petitioner’s argu-ment that the University sought to attain minority rep-resentation proportional to that of the Texas population,reasoning that respondents’ “methods and efforts beliethe charge.” Id. at 45a. The court also rejected peti-tioner’s contentions that the University had attainedsufficient diversity without considering race through theTop Ten plan, id. at 62a-68a; and that the University’s

5

consideration of race was not narrowly tailored becauseit resulted in only small increases in minority enroll-ment, id. at 69a-70a.

Judges King and Garza specially concurred. Pet.App. 72a; id. at 72a-114a.

4. The court of appeals denied rehearing en banc.Pet. App. 172a-174a. Seven judges would have grantedthe petition. Chief Judge Jones, joined by four judges,authored a dissenting opinion, in which she argued thatthe panel had failed to apply strict scrutiny. Id. at 174a-184a.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

I. In Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), thisCourt held that a university may conclude that the edu-cational benefits of diversity, including racial and ethnicdiversity, are essential to its educational mission, andthat a university can therefore have a compelling inter-est in assembling a diverse student body. Diverse stu-dent enrollment not only “promotes cross-racial under-standing, helps to break down racial stereotypes, andenables [students] to better understand persons of dif-ferent races”; it also prepares all students to succeed in,and eventually lead, “an increasingly diverse workforceand society.” Id. at 330, 333 (brackets in original; cita-tions and internal quotation marks omitted).

The educational benefits of diversity identified inGrutter are of critical importance to the United States.Careers in a range of fields that are vital to the nationalinterest—such as the military officer corps, science, law,medicine, finance, education, and other professions (forwhich a university degree is a prerequisite)—must beopen to all segments of American society, regardless ofrace and ethnicity. That is not simply a matter of civic

6

responsibility; it is a pressing necessity in an era of in-tense competition in the global economy and ever-evolving worldwide national-security threats. The gov-ernment, moreover, has a vital interest in drawing itspersonnel—many of whom will eventually become itscivilian and military leaders—from a well-qualified anddiverse pool of university and service-academy gradu-ates of all backgrounds who possess the understandingof diversity that is necessary to govern and defend theUnited States. In particular, the Department of De-fense (DoD) has concluded that a highly qualified andbroadly diverse officer corps is essential to militaryreadiness. Officer training programs run by DoD andthe Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—includ-ing service academies and Reserve Officer TrainingCorps (ROTC) programs located at civilian institutionssuch as the University—therefore must produce a ra-cially and ethnically diverse range of graduates who areprepared to lead a multiracial force.

This Court has held that a university may institute anarrowly tailored policy that considers race as part of aholistic, individualized admissions process, when doingso is necessary to achieve the educational benefits ofdiversity. Grutter, 539 U.S. at 333. Race should, how-ever, be considered in individualized admissions deci-sions only when other means are insufficient to achievethe benefits of diversity. Id. at 340. “[S]earching judi-cial review” is thus an essential safeguard that ensuresthat race is used in admissions only when necessary tofurther a compelling interest in educational diversityand when narrowly tailored to achieve the university’sgoals. Id. at 395 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).

II. The admissions program instituted by the Univer-sity is constitutional under Grutter. A core component

7

of the University’s educational mission, as Texas’s flag-ship public university, is to train students to become thenext generation of Texas leaders by exposing them tothe many diverse perspectives and cross-racial interac-tions that they will encounter in civic life. The Univer-sity therefore determined that the educational benefitsof diversity are essential to its mission, that its studentbody was insufficiently diverse to attain those benefits,and that it was necessary to consider race in individualadmissions decisions in order to achieve the University’scompelling interest. Those conclusions are amply sup-ported by the record.

To attain its educational objectives, the Universityrelied on Grutter in instituting a holistic analysis thatpermits consideration of an applicant’s race as one fac-tor among many. See Grutter, 539 U.S. at 327-337; id.at 393 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). Race is considered noton its own, but as a piece of information that providesvaluable context in understanding an applicant’sachievements and his likely contributions to the Univer-sity. See ibid. That individualized consideration is de-signed to work in conjunction with the Top Ten plan toenable the University to construct a class that is diversein all ways valued by the institution. It not only enablesthe University to seek a “critical mass of students fromtraditionally underrepresented backgrounds,” S.J.A.25a, but also ensures that the University fills the limitednumber of non-Top Ten admissions slots with studentswho are diverse in all respects valued by the University.This contextual, limited consideration of race is nar-rowly tailored to achieve the University’s compellinginterest, and it should be upheld.

8

ARGUMENT

I. THE UNITED STATES HAS A CRITICAL INTEREST INENSURING THAT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AREABLE TO PROVIDE THE EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS OFDIVERSITY

A. The Court Has Recognized That Institutions Of HigherEducation Have A Compelling Interest In Attaining ADiverse Student Body

1. In Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 325 (2003),this Court held that “student body diversity is a compel-ling state interest that can justify the use of race in uni-versity admissions.” Grutter reaffirmed the reasoningof Justice Powell’s opinion announcing the judgment ofthe Court in Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 311-315(1978), which served as “the touchstone for constitu-tional analysis of race-conscious admissions policies”and the model for the admissions programs of “[p]ublicand private universities across the Nation.” 539 U.S. at323. Justice Powell had approved a university’s consid-eration of race to further a compelling interest in a stu-dent body that is diverse in all respects valued by theinstitution, reasoning that the “[N]ation’s future de-pends upon leaders trained through wide exposure tothe ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nationof many peoples.” Bakke, 438 U.S. at 311-312, 313 (in-ternal quotation marks omitted).

Drawing on Justice Powell’s reasoning, Grutter heldthat a university may conclude that “diversity is essen-tial to its educational mission.” 539 U.S. at 328-330; ac-cord id. at 387-388 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). Grutterexplained that racially and ethnically diverse student en-rollment “promotes ‘cross-racial understanding,’ helpsbreak down racial stereotypes, and ‘enables [students]

9

to better understand persons of different races.’ ” Id . at330 (citation omitted); see Bakke, 438 U.S. at 312.Student-body diversity also “better prepares studentsfor an increasingly diverse workforce and society,”Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330, while ensuring that “the pathto leadership [is] visibly open to talented and qualifiedindividuals of every race and ethnicity,” id. at 332 (inter-nal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Grutter therefore held that a university may seek toassemble a class that contains sufficient numbers ofunderrepresented minorities to attain the “educationalbenefits [of] diversity.” 539 U.S. at 330. A universitymay “consider race or ethnicity * * * flexibly as a‘plus’ factor in the context of individualized consider-ation” of each applicant, id. at 334, when doing so is nec-essary to attain the educational benefits of diversity andthe program is narrowly tailored, id. at 333.

2. The University relied on Grutter’s guidance inanalyzing its educational mission and interest in diver-sity and in tailoring its admissions policy. S.J.A. 24a,26a-32a. Many other post-secondary institutionsthroughout the country have done the same. The De-partments of Education and Justice have issued guid-ance designed to assist post-secondary educational insti-tutions in determining whether considering race is nec-essary to achieve their educational missions and in tai-loring any consideration of race to meet the standardsdelineated in Grutter. See generally U.S. Dep’ts of Edu-cation and Justice, Guidance on the Voluntary Use ofRace to Achieve Diversity in Postsecondary Education(2011).

10

B. The United States Military And Federal Agencies HaveRecognized The Importance Of The Educational Bene-fits Of Diversity

The Grutter Court recognized that the educationalbenefits of diversity “are not theoretical but real.” 539U.S. at 330. The United States’ experience confirmsthat conclusion. The armed services and numerous fed-eral agencies have concluded that well-qualified anddiverse graduates are crucial to the fulfillment of theirmissions. The Nation’s interests in a range of areas—including military readiness, national security, publichealth, federal law enforcement, global competitiveness,and education—will be more readily achieved if thepathways to professional success are visibly open to allsegments of American society. The government endeav-ors to recruit well-qualified graduates who are diverseand prepared to succeed in a diverse society, and it ben-efits directly when selective universities ensure thattheir student bodies are diverse so that all students re-ceive the educational benefits of diversity.

1. The United States armed services have a strong in-terest in a well-qualified and diverse officer corps,and the educational benefits of diversity are criticalto serving that interest

a. The armed services have long recognized thatbuilding and maintaining a military force that is bothhighly qualified and broadly diverse—including in itsracial and ethnic composition—is a “strategic impera-tive, critical to mission readiness and accomplishment,and a leadership requirement.” DoD, Diversity andInclusion Strategic Plan—2012 to 2017, at 3 (2012)(Strategic Plan). As both the enlisted ranks of the mili-tary and the population of the Nation have become in-

11

creasingly diverse, military leaders have concluded thatan officer corps that is markedly less diverse than theenlisted ranks, and that is unattuned to the diverse per-spectives of those they must lead, can undermine themilitary’s combat readiness. Fostering a pipeline ofwell-prepared and diverse officer candidates is thereforean urgent military priority.

That military policy judgment reflects the lessons ofactual battlefield experience during the Vietnam War,when the disparity between the overwhelmingly whiteofficer corps and the highly diverse enlisted ranks“threatened the integrity and performance” of the mili-tary. Military Leadership Diversity Comm’n, Final Re-port, From Representation to Inclusion: DiversityLeadership for the 21st-Century Military xvi (Mar. 15,2011) (MLDC Report). Officers often failed to perceiveracial tensions among enlisted personnel that threat-ened combat readiness. Bernard C. Nalty, Strength forthe Fight: A History of Black Americans in the Mili-tary 303-317 (Free Press 1986). The absence of diver-sity in the officer corps also undermined the military’svery legitimacy by fueling “popular perceptions of ra-cial/ethnic minorities serving as ‘cannon fodder’ forwhite military leaders.” MLDC Report 15.

Against this background, military leaders have con-cluded that a diverse officer corps is essential to the mili-tary’s operational readiness. An officer corps that re-flects the diversity of the enlisted ranks improves per-formance by “facilitat[ing] greater confidence” in lead-ership and assuring enlisted personnel that advance-ment is possible “regardless of * * * background.”MLDC Report xvi, 14-15, 44. In addition, as then-Secre-tary of Defense Robert M. Gates observed, there is arisk over time of developing a corps of military leaders

12

who “politically, culturally, and geographically have lessand less in common with the people they have sworn todefend.” Lecture at Duke University: All-VolunteerForce (Sept. 29, 2010). Countering that risk by fosteringdiversity of all kinds “engender[s] trust among the popu-lation” and helps ensure democratic legitimacy. MLDCReport 44. And maintaining a diverse leadership corpsensures that the military contains the “cultural and ra-cial identities that allow us to create lasting relation-ships to better understand our partner forces.” GidgetFuentes, SEALs Reach Out to Increase Diversity,NavyTimes, Apr. 30, 2012; MLDC Report 17. Diversityis “absolutely a combat multiplier, especially in the envi-ronments that we see coming at us and that we are deal-ing with today.” MLDC Report 16 (quoting GeneralGeorge Casey, Jr., former Chief of Staff of the Army).

The military thus has a powerful interest in develop-ing an officer corps that is prepared to lead a diverseforce and whose makeup is not divorced from those ofthe enlisted ranks and the general population. StrategicPlan 3-4; Adm. Michael G. Mullen, Chairman, JointChiefs of Staff, The National Military Strategy of theUnited States of America, at 16-17 (Feb. 8, 2011). De-spite progress toward that objective, minorities remain“underrepresented among the Armed Forces’ top lead-ership, compared with the servicemembers they lead.”MLDC Report xiii.

b. To meet these concerns, creating a diverse pipe-line of officer candidates is an urgent military priority.Strategic Plan 3-4, 7. Because the military does not hireline officers laterally, as a corporation might, MLDCReport xvi, the military’s top leadership in future de-cades will be drawn from those who join the militarytoday. The educational practices of the military’s pri-

13

mary officer-training programs—the service academiesand ROTC programs—will therefore shape the nextgeneration of military leaders.

The services have concluded that fostering student-body diversity is vital to the service academies’ andROTC programs’ ability to provide a rigorous educationfor all students and prepare cadets for leadership roles.For instance, the United States Air Force Academy(USAFA) has concluded that the highest quality militaryeducation comes from “exposing [cadets] to a broadrange of ideas and experiences in both a formal class-room setting and in informal interactions with individu-als whose background and experience offer dissimilarinformation.” Lt. Gen. Michael C. Gould, USAFA Su-perintendent, USAFA Diversity Plan 1 (June 2009).The USAFA’s leadership training program is “best real-ized when the cadet cadre itself is widely diverse” sothat cadets can “learn to bring out the best in each indi-vidual regardless of his or her background.” Id. at 3.Similarly, the United States Coast Guard Academy(USCGA), which is operated by DHS, has concluded that“developing the skills to think critically and communi-cate effectively with people of different backgrounds [isa] fundamental learning outcome[] of the cadet experi-ence.” Rear Adm. Sandra L. Stosz, USCGA Superinten-dent, Coast Guard Academy Admissions Statement 2(2011).

ROTC programs, which provide military and leader-ship training to undergraduates interested in a militarycareer and are the single largest source of new officers,can best achieve these goals when their participatinginstitutions are diverse. In particular, selective univer-sities that admit talented students with leadership po-tential and provide the educational benefits of diversity

14

are a critical source of future officers. DoD has foundthat minority officers who enter the military from “moreselective colleges” have “significantly higher perfor-mance ratings” than similarly situated officers from lessselective colleges. Office of the Under Sec’y of Def. forPers. & Readiness, DoD, Career Progression of Minor-ity and Women Officers 62 (1999).

The University is a prime example of such an institu-tion: it hosts Army, Navy, and Air Force ROTC detach-ments, provides a dynamic and diverse learning environ-ment, and is highly selective. See College of LiberalArts—Academic Units, http://www.utexas.edu/cola/resources/offices/. Because of the efforts of institutionslike the University, the services can confidently rely onROTC programs to provide a pipeline of highly quali-fied, diverse officer candidates.

Grutter’s holding that post-secondary institutionsmay, when necessary, consider race as one factor in indi-vidualized admissions decisions provides the flexibilitynecessary to achieve the armed services’ objective ofassembling an officer corps that is prepared to lead adiverse force. The military relies on the University andother schools with ROTC detachments to ensure thattheir student bodies are highly qualified, diverse, andtrained in a diverse setting—by considering race in indi-vidualized admissions decisions, if necessary. SeeGrutter, 539 U.S. at 331. The service academies simi-larly need to ensure that their student bodies are highlyqualified, diverse, and prepared to lead a diverse force.1

1 Non-individualized measures like the Top Ten plan would not workfor the service academies in light of their nationwide applicant base,rigorous academic and physical standards, and the fact that candidatesfor West Point, the Naval Academy and the Air Force Academy must

15

If and when outreach and recruiting measures fall short,the academies need the flexibility to be able to considerrace as one factor in a holistic review of each applicantin making admissions decisions.

2. Well-qualified and diverse graduates are critical toother national interests

Numerous federal agencies, including those dis-cussed below, have concluded that well-qualified anddiverse graduates are crucial to the fulfillment of theirmissions.

a. A pipeline of highly qualified, diverse graduatesis critical to the Nation’s law-enforcement and national-security needs. As Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) Director Robert Mueller III has explained, diver-sity is “absolutely vital to getting the job done for ourcountry. * * * The reality is, to be effective, we haveto look like America. We have to understand and reflectthe communities we serve. And we must be global in ourreach.” Speech at the Nat’l Conference of the Histori-cally Black Colls. & Univs.: FBI Diversity Employ-ment in a New Age of Global Terror (Sept. 17, 2002).

Similarly, DHS requires a “workforce with diversebackgrounds, experiences, and competencies” in orderto “optimize[] DHS’s effectiveness in serving a heteroge-neous public and coordinating with international part-ners to secure the homeland.” Office for Civil Rights &Civil Liberties, DHS, MD-715 EEO Program StatusReport 7 (FY 2009). Accordingly, DHS administersgrants to minority-serving educational institutions—including many public universities—to build scientificresearch and education capacity and increase the num-

be nominated by public officials. See 10 U.S.C. 4342, 6954, 9342 (2006& Supp. IV 2010); Grutter, 539 U.S. at 340.

16

ber and diversity of future professionals in areas criticalto homeland security. See, e.g., DHS Funding Opportu-nity Announcement: 2012 Scientific LeadershipAwards for Minority Serving Institutions (MSI)Granting Bachelor Degrees.

b. The Department of Health and Human Services(HHS), whose mission includes promoting advances inthe sciences, medicine, and public health, has made it apriority to foster diversity among undergraduates whomajor in health-care-related fields. Despite consider-able progress, minorities remain less likely to have ac-cess to quality health care or to participate in clinicalstudies, and are more likely to suffer from common seri-ous illnesses. See Secretarial Statement on NationalMinority Health Month 2012 (Apr. 2, 2012); Committeeon Understanding & Eliminating Racial & Ethnic Dis-parities in Health Care, Inst. of Med. of the Nat’lAcads., Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial andEthnic Disparities in Health Care 29-30 (Brian D.Smedley et al. eds., 2003). Developing a national work-force of practitioners and researchers who are preparedto address minority health issues, and who also havediverse backgrounds, will help address these concerns.See id. at 2, 186 (citing studies). University sciencesprograms must therefore be visibly open to qualifiedminority students and must prepare all students to ad-dress minority health concerns.

In the Minority Health and Health Disparities Re-search and Education Act of 2000, Congress identifieda “national need” for minority scientists and doctors,and concluded that federal agencies should promote adiverse scientific workforce and institute programs that“effectively overcome barriers such as educational tran-sition from one level to the next.” Pub. L. No. 106-525,

17

§ 2, 114 Stat. 2495-2497. In addition, Congress has pro-vided that HHS “shall make grants to * * * designatedhealth professions schools * * * and other public andnonprofit health or educational entities, for the purposeof assisting the schools in supporting programs of excel-lence in health professions education for under-represented minority individuals.” 42 U.S.C. 293(a).2

II. THE UNIVERSITY’S CONSIDERATION OF RACE IN AD-MISSIONS IS CONSTITUTIONAL

As the flagship university in Texas and one of theNation’s leading public institutions of higher education,the University trains students who will become the nextgeneration of professional, civic, military, and commu-nity leaders. Accordingly, the University’s educationalmission focuses on preparing students to lead the pro-fessions and communities in which they will take theirplace when they graduate. To achieve its mission, theUniversity, relying on the guidance provided in Grutter,S.J.A. 23a-24a, instituted a “nuanced, individual evalua-tion of school needs and student characteristics that* * * include[s] race as a component” of a holistic ad-

2 Other agencies also have concluded that well-qualified and diversegraduates are essential to their missions. For instance, the Departmentof Education, whose mission encompasses fostering educational ex-cellence and promoting diversity in post-secondary institutions, en-courages grant applicants to develop “[p]rojects that are designed topromote student diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity.” 75Fed. Reg. 78,508 (Dec. 15, 2010); see id. at 78,500. It also administersprograms designed to increase the number of individuals from under-represented groups, including minority groups, in many fields. E.g., 20U.S.C. 1070a-15 (2006 & Supp. IV 2010). In addition, the Departmentof Commerce has an interest in promoting equal educational and eco-nomic opportunities and in promoting diversity among the leaders ofcommercial enterprises.

18

missions analysis. Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v.Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 790 (2007) (Ken-nedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judg-ment). That program is constitutional because it is“necessary to further a compelling governmental inter-est” and is narrowly tailored. Grutter, 539 U.S. at 327.

Grutter emphasizes that in evaluating the constitu-tionality of a university admissions program, “[c]ontextmatters.” 539 U.S. at 327. Here, the University de-signed its holistic process to work in tandem with theTop Ten plan to build a student body that will fulfill theUniversity’s educational mission. These two compo-nents—although adopted sequentially by the Univer-sity—should therefore be considered together.

In 1998, had the University not been limited byHopwood, it could have addressed the limited diversityin its student body—Hispanic and African-Americanstudents were 13% and 3% of the class, respectively,S.J.A. 30a—by simply instituting its current admissionsprocess. In other words, the University could have ad-mitted part of its class through the Top Ten plan and theremainder through its holistic analysis, including consid-eration of race. Admitting its entire class through theTop Ten plan would have required the University to sac-rifice many dimensions of diversity—and selectivity—infavor of exclusive reliance on class rank. See p. 32, in-fra; Grutter, 539 U.S. at 340-341. And given that thePAI analysis, without consideration of race, had failed toincrease diversity, Pet. App. 18a-19a, considering racein the holistic analysis would have been justified as acomplementary means of attaining sufficient diversityand ensuring that admitted minority students were di-verse in numerous respects. See pp. 28-30, infra. AsGrutter confirms, the University would have had the

19

latitude to experiment with admitting part of its classwithout individualized consideration of race, and part ofit with such consideration, thereby minimizing consider-ation of race while maintaining values and furtheringgoals important to the University.

In actuality, the University adopted the Top Ten planfirst, and the holistic analysis that included race later.But that should not foreclose the University from con-cluding that it needed to give limited consideration torace in the non-Top Ten portion of the class to furtherits educational mission. The Top Ten plan’s reliance onclass rank to the exclusion of all other attributes madeit important to fill the relatively few remaining admis-sions slots by making nuanced decisions based on a com-plete contextual understanding of each individual, inorder to ensure that the student body contained peoplewho possessed the many attributes valued by the Uni-versity. And use of the Top Ten plan had not resulted ina level of minority enrollment that, in the University’sjudgment, was sufficient to provide students with a real-istic environment that would prepare them to lead ahighly diverse workforce. The University legitimatelyconcluded in these circumstances that the holistic evalu-ation of each individual student would be both incom-plete and insufficient without consideration of the appli-cant’s race along with other factors.

A. The University’s Admissions Policy Is Supported By ACompelling Interest In Attaining The Benefits Of Diver-sity

1. The University has a compelling interest in secur-ing the educational benefits of a racially and ethnicallydiverse student body. See Pet. App. 33a-35a, 142a-158a.The University concluded that its educational mission,

20

as the “flagship” state university, is to provide a “com-prehensive education,” S.J.A. 23a, and “to produce grad-uates who are capable of fulfilling the future leadershipneeds of Texas.” S.J.A. 24a. Because Texas will soon“have no majority race,” its leaders “must not only bedrawn from a diverse population but must also be ableto lead a multicultural workforce and to communicatepolicy to a diverse electorate.” Ibid. To accomplishthese objectives, the University concluded, it was neces-sary to foster the educational benefits of diversity for allstudents that Grutter identified: enhanced classroomdiscussion, decreased racial isolation, “a robust ex-change of ideas, exposure to differing cultures, prepara-tion for the challenges of an increasingly diverse work-force, and acquisition of competencies required of futureleaders.” S.J.A. 23a; 539 U.S. at 330.

That conclusion is precisely the sort of “complex edu-cational judgment[]” that falls within the core of the Uni-versity’s expertise, Grutter, 539 U.S. at 328, as well asits traditional freedom “to make its own judgments as toeducation,” Bakke, 438 U.S. at 312 (opinion of Powell,J.). The University’s “good faith” in concluding thatdiversity is essential to its mission should therefore be“‘presumed’ absent ‘a showing to the contrary.’ ”Grutter, 539 U.S. at 329 (quoting Bakke, 438 U.S. at 318-319 (opinion of Powell, J.)).

2. Petitioner contends (Br. 26-30) that the Univer-sity is not actually pursuing the educational benefits ofdiversity approved in Grutter, but is instead pursuingthe “patently unconstitutional” objective of racial bal-ancing. Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330; Br. 27. Petitioner isincorrect.

a. Petitioner’s argument ignores the fact that, as thelower courts correctly found, Pet. App. 43a-52a, 153a-

21

156a, the University designed and implemented its ad-missions process to pursue the educational benefits ofdiversity, and not any form of proportional representa-tion.

The modest, holistic manner in which the Universityincorporated consideration of race into its PAI assess-ment demonstrates that the University’s objective isattaining the educational benefits of diversity. Grutter,539 U.S. at 334; Bakke, 438 U.S. at 318 (opinion ofPowell, J.). Race is one of many characteristics (includ-ing socioeconomic status, work experience, and otherfactors) that admissions officials may consider in evalu-ating the contributions that an applicant would make tothe University, including interactions that occur amongstudents in small classes. J.A. 129a-130a, 207a-209a,294a; S.J.A. 29a; see Bakke, 438 U.S. at 317 (discussingsimilar plan with approval). Race is not considered onits own, and it is never determinative of an applicant’sadmission by itself. J.A. 434a; see Grutter, 539 U.S. at337. Rather, race is one of a number of contextual fac-tors that provide a more complete understanding of theapplicant’s record and experiences. That is a far cryfrom impermissible racial balancing.

That conclusion is reinforced by the way the Univer-sity implements its admissions policy. Racial balancingis impermissible because it makes race the predominantconsideration at the expense of individualized assess-ment. See Grutter, 539 U.S. at 336-337; accord id. at 389(Kennedy, J., dissenting). But the University has notsubordinated individualized consideration of each appli-cant to the achievement of any level of race-based repre-sentation. As petitioner conceded below, the Univer-sity’s policy does not include any “goal, target, or otherquantitative objective for the admission and/or enroll-

22

ment of under-represented minority students for any ofthe incoming classes admitted in 2003 through 2008.”J.A. 131a. To the contrary, the process is designed sothat officials are unaware of individual applicants’ racewhen making the ultimate admissions decisions. Whilerace (like other characteristics) may have affected someapplicants’ PAI scores, only the resulting numerical PAIscores, together with AI scores, are plotted on a matrixused to determine which groups of applicants are admit-ted.3 J.A. 191a-192a, 213a, 379a-380a, 385a-389a; see p.4, supra. And the University does not track the pro-gression of minority admissions for the purpose of influ-encing subsequent admissions decisions. J.A. 415a; seeGrutter, 539 U.S. at 391-392 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).Finally, the results of the policy—the University’s ad-missions and enrollment figures—do not support thecharge of racial balancing. The University’s consider-ation of race since 2005 has not resulted in anything ap-proaching proportional representation. See Pet. App.156a n.11.

b. Petitioner’s racial balancing argument (Br. 26-29)relies heavily on the University’s recognition that “sig-nificant differences” between its student demographicsand the State’s population—Hispanics and AfricanAmericans were substantially underrepresented in thestudent body, S.J.A. 25a—undermined both its ability toprepare students for success in Texas’s diverse commu-nity and its ability to ensure that the “path to leader-ship” was “visibly open” to “qualified individuals of ev-ery race and ethnicity.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 332; S.J.A.24a-25a.

3 As petitioner observes (Br. 9), an applicant’s race is noted on herfile during the PAI scoring process. J.A. 169a. The ultimate admissionsdecisions, however, are based solely on the scores.

23

Petitioner’s argument (Br. 26-27) is based on theerroneous premise that disparities between student-body and state-population demographics can never be arelevant consideration in assessing the educational ben-efits of diversity recognized in Grutter. That is incor-rect. Grutter recognized that “prepar[ing] students foran increasingly diverse workforce and society,” 539 U.S.at 330 (citation omitted), is one of the educational bene-fits of diversity. That recognition is premised on a de-mographic fact about the population—that it is becom-ing increasingly diverse—and presupposes that a uni-versity need not ignore the characteristics of the com-munity into which students will graduate when the uni-versity evaluates whether it is providing adequate lead-ership preparation.

In addition, the existence of stark demographic dis-parities is relevant to a university’s interest in being“visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of ev-ery race and ethnicity.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 332. A stu-dent body that bears little resemblance to the state pop-ulation, thereby suggesting that the pathway to leader-ship is not truly open to all, could undermine future lead-ers’ “legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry.” Ibid. Itcould also harm the institution’s efforts to recruit highlyqualified minorities, who in turn will contribute to theeducational benefits of diversity.

Statewide demographics thus may provide informa-tion relevant to whether an institution is providing theeducational benefits of diversity. The University consid-ered statewide demographics in this limited and permis-sible manner. S.J.A. 23a-25a. The University concludedthat an environment in which the presence of African-American and Hispanic students was approximately halfwhat it was in the state population was not conductive to

24

training the future leaders of an increasingly diverseState and was not consistent with being visibly open toall. S.J.A. 24a-25a. As admissions officials were aware,moreover, J.A. 285a, Texas high schools have high ratesof de facto racial segregation. See also Marta Tienda &Sunny Xinchun Niu, Capitalizing on Segregation, Pre-tending Neutrality: College Admissions and the TexasTop 10% Law, 8 Am. L. & Econ. Rev. 312, 312 (2006).The fact that college may be many students’ first expo-sure to an environment that more realistically reflectsthe State’s actual diversity increases the importance ofproviding many opportunities for cross-racial interac-tion.4

For these reasons, an institution’s attention to signif-icant demographic disparities does not in itself establishthat it impermissibly seeks racial balancing rather thanthe educational benefits of diversity. See Grutter, 539U.S. at 336-337. Here, as the lower courts correctly con-cluded, the factual record regarding the University’sdesign and implementation of its policy refutes peti-tioner’s charge. See pp. 21-22, supra.

3. Petitioner erroneously contends (Br. 29-30) thatthe University is pursuing “classroom diversity” rather

4 Petitioner argues (Br. 28) that the University’s conclusion thatAsian Americans were not underrepresented even though they werepresent in the 2004 class in approximately the same numbers as His-panics indicates that the University was engaged in racial balancing.But the University’s reasoning is consistent with its focus on being vis-ibly open and providing students adequate opportunities to interactwith people of all backgrounds represented in the State. The Univer-sity had already achieved these goals with respect to Asian Americans,but not with respect to Hispanics and African Americans. S.J.A. 25a-26a. The University’s policy, moreover, contemplates that Asian Amer-icans’ race may be favorably considered in the holistic analysis. J.A.130a.

25

than the “student-body diversity” endorsed by Grutter.539 U.S. at 328-329. The University used its classroomdiversity study as one means of measuring cross-racialinteraction on campus in those small classes that aremost likely to foster discussion and student interactions.S.J.A. 69a; J.A. 266a. Because exposing students to di-verse perspectives within the classroom is, as Grutterrecognized, an important educational benefit of diver-sity, the University’s consideration of classroom-diversity figures is therefore entirely consistent withGrutter. 539 U.S. at 330.

In particular, the classroom study demonstrated thatas the University increased the number of smallerclasses between 1996 and 2002, the percentage of classeswith one or no African-American or Hispanic studentshad increased (to 90% and 43%, respectively). S.J.A.26a. That trend was of concern to the University, S.J.A.25a, because the University intended to further increasethe number of smaller classes in order to improve educa-tional experiences, S.J.A. 70a, and an unintended conse-quence of that effort could be greater racial isolationand less cross-racial interaction. The University’s con-cern on that score contributed to its conclusion that in-creasing diversity in the overall student body was neces-sary. S.J.A. 24a-25a. But it is wrong to suggest that theUniversity sought to ensure that “every small class hassome minimum number of minority students,” Pet. Br.30. The district court found that the University neversuggested that it had such a goal in mind, J.A. 267a; Pet.App. 157a, and petitioner points to no evidence to thecontrary. Indeed, the classroom representation to whichpetitioner refers would likely be unattainable. See Pet.Br. 30, 43-44; Pet. App. 157a.

26

B. Considering Race As One Factor In The Holistic Compo-nent Of The University’s Admissions Process Was Neces-sary To Serve The University’s Compelling Interests

The University’s conclusion that limited consider-ation of race in its admissions process was “necessary tofurther a compelling governmental interest” in 2004, andremained necessary in 2008, Grutter, 539 U.S. at 327, isamply supported by the record.

1. Because the point at which a university reachessufficient diversity is defined “by reference to the educa-tional benefits that diversity is designed to produce,”Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330, whether a university has at-tained that objective is largely an educational decisionthat, while based on “empirical data,” id. at 388 (Ken-nedy, J., dissenting), ultimately entails a qualitativeevaluation of the educational experience the universityis providing. Accordingly, the University’s conclusionthat it had not attained its objectives was based on itsassessment of its ability to provide the educational bene-fits of diversity, rather than a numerical calculation.5

Whether that conclusion is justified by the empiricaldata should be evaluated with due regard for the multi-faceted educational assessment the University’s deter-mination reflects.

Petitioner’s exclusive focus on raw numbers is inap-posite. As petitioner observes (Br. 35), in 2004, the lastyear before the University provided for consideration ofan applicant’s race as one factor in the holistic compo-nent of its admissions process, the entering class was

5 Petitioner faults the University (Br. 34) for failing to define a “per-centage of its student body” that constitutes a critical mass for thesepurposes, but the plan upheld in Grutter also lacked a numerical target.539 U.S. at 318.

27

16.9% Hispanic and 4.5% African American. Through acombination of circumstances unique to Texas—the TopTen plan, operating in conjunction with the State’s de-mographics and largely segregated high schools—theUniversity was able to attain what petitioner labels(ibid.) as “substantial” minority enrollment, at least withrespect to Hispanics, without considering race in indi-vidual admissions decisions. But whether those figureswere sufficient does not turn, as petitioner argues (Br.35-36), on whether they seem “substantial” in the ab-stract, or how they compare to universities in otherStates. That approach would ignore Grutter’s recogni-tion that sufficient diversity is not a number but thepoint at which a university concludes that it is achievingthe educational benefits of diversity in light of its cir-cumstances and educational mission. 539 U.S. at 330.

2. The University’s conclusion that in light of itseducational objectives as Texas’s flagship university, ithad not attained critical mass in 2004 or 2008, is amplysupported in the record.

With respect to African Americans, who totaled 309enrolled students out of 6796 in 2004, and 375 out of 6715in 2008, S.J.A. 156a, petitioner does not attempt to arguethat the University was required to find that those fig-ures were sufficient to avoid racial isolation, break downstereotypes, or promote cross-racial understanding—much less provide a visible path to leadership.6 Grutter,

6 Instead, petitioner elides (Br. 35) the considerations specific toAfrican-American representation by considering African Americansand Hispanics as one group. But because individuals from each groupbring distinct varieties of diversity—of experience, culture, language—to an institution, the University properly evaluated whether it hadachieved its objectives with respect to each group separately. Pet. App.67a (citing Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 723).

28

539 U.S. at 332. These circumstances regardingAfrican-American enrollment would alone have justifiedindividualized consideration of race in admissions underGrutter. See 539 U.S. at 329-330.

With respect to Hispanic students, the fact that theymade up 16.9% of the class in 2004 (and 20% in 2008)may have alleviated concerns about racial isolation andtokenism. S.J.A. 156a. But those figures also showedthat Hispanics were substantially underrepresentedcompared to their numbers in the statewide population(34.9% in 2004 and 36% in 2008). Pet. App. 154a-155a;U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, TheAmerican Community—Hispanics: 2004, at 6 (Feb.2006). In view of the significant—and growing—His-panic proportion of the State’s population and the trendtoward less classroom diversity, the University con-cluded that it could not provide the degree of cross-ra-cial interactions necessary to prepare its students forleadership in Texas. S.J.A. 24a; see pp. 23-24, supra.That determination took into account the University’seducational mission, its evaluation of on-campus interac-tions, and student views. J.A. 267a-268a, 395a-396a;S.J.A. 24a.

3. The University’s decision to consider race as onefactor in the holistic component of its admissions processgains additional support from the Top Ten plan’s effecton the University’s educational priorities. Because theTop Ten plan guarantees admission based solely on classrank, the University must rely heavily on its holisticadmissions process to ensure that the remainder of thestudent body is composed of students who are “diversealong all the qualities valued by the university.”Grutter, 539 U.S. at 340; J.A. 203a, 359a. Only the holis-tic analysis enables the University to select students

29

who have exhibited leadership potential or particulartalents, but whose class rank does not place them in theTop Ten, as well as out-of-state students and studentswho are academically qualified but missed the Top Tencut in the most rigorous high schools.

After the Top Ten plan became law, the Universityreconciled its desire to admit a significant portion of thestudent body using the holistic analysis (which did notthen take race into account) with its automatic Top Tenadmissions by increasing the overall number of studentsadmitted each year. S.J.A. 31a. By 2003, however, theUniversity was unable to sustain those increases, and itsignificantly reduced the non-Top Ten portion of theentering class. Ibid.

At that point, the non-Top Ten admissions processbecame extremely selective. Pet. App. 59a n.155. Ex-cluding all consideration of race, the University had in-creasing difficulty ensuring that its non-Top Ten admis-sions included significant numbers of students who pos-sessed the attributes valued by the University but notaccounted for in Top Ten admissions. Taking race intoaccount as one factor in the holistic individual assess-ment therefore helped ensure that the admissions pro-cess remained effective in admitting significant numbersof underrepresented minorities, as well as non-minori-ties, who would contribute the varieties of experienceand attributes that the University sought in assemblingits student body.

The University could legitimately conclude that ex-cluding any consideration of race from the PAI analysiswould fail to take the measure of the whole person, andwould deprive the University of valuable context even asthe shrinking size of the non-Top Ten portion of theclass forced the University to make increasingly

30

nuanced admissions decisions. A student’s “own, uniqueexperience of being a racial minority in a society * * *in which race unfortunately still matters” may affect astudent’s opportunities and views. Grutter, 539 U.S. at333; accord Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 787 (Kennedy,J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).An applicant’s race therefore may provide necessary—and illuminating—context for evaluating the applicant’sachievements. For example, knowing that the student-body president at an overwhelmingly white school isAfrican American provides a more complete understand-ing of his achievement. J.A. 204a-205a, 207a, 210a-211a,309a-310a.

C. The University’s Admissions Policy Is Narrowly Tailored

The University’s admissions policy meets Grutter’snarrow tailoring requirement. The holistic componentof that policy “affords * * * individualized consider-ation to applicants of all races” rather than operating asa quota system; it was adopted only after the Universityconcluded that other alternatives were not workable;and it is limited in time. 539 U.S. at 337-342.

1. a. As discussed above, see p. 21, supra, the Uni-versity’s holistic admissions policy provides individual-ized consideration to every applicant. Grutter, 539 U.S.at 334; Bakke, 438 U.S. at 318 (opinion of Powell, J.).The University does not “limit in any way the broadrange of qualities and experiences that may be consid-ered valuable contributions to student body diversity.”Grutter, 539 U.S. at 338. While adding race to the PAIassessment “increases the chance” that an applicant ofan underrepresented minority will be considered “meri-torious and diverse” in all relevant respects, J.A. 434a,race is never determinative by itself. See Grutter, 539

31

U.S. at 337. The policy therefore does not operate as a“classification that tells each student he or she is to bedefined by race.” Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 789(Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in thejudgment).

b. The University’s policy also does not function asa quota system. The University does not maintain nu-merical goals for minority admission or enrollment.S.J.A. 29a. Nor does it insulate individuals of differentraces from competing with each other, or give race “anymore or less weight” based on admissions decisions pre-viously made. J.A. 301a-303a, 407a, 415a; Pet. App.160a; Grutter, 539 U.S. at 334-336. The University hasalso “taken steps to ensure individual assessment” atevery point in the process: because the procedures insu-late consideration of an applicant’s race from the ulti-mate admissions decision, the process is not geared toreach desired yearly demographic targets. See p. 22,supra; Grutter, 539 U.S. at 391 (Kennedy, J., dissent-ing). There is thus no danger that admissions officialswill weigh race more heavily and abandon individualizedconsideration as the admissions process progresses. Cf.539 U.S. at 392.

In addition, although petitioner faults (Br. 38-39) theUniversity for being “unable to identify any students”for whom race was determinative, that is hardly a flawin the system. Rather, it underscores that the Univer-sity properly treats race as one factor among many,making an attempt to identify any one dispositive factorlargely futile. The University has built as much con-creteness as possible into the analysis by giving admis-sions officials instructions on considering race only whenappropriate to give context to an individual’s achieve-

32

ments, J.A. 168a-169a, and by training officials to ensurethat scoring is consistent, Bremen Dep. 26-28.

c. The University gave “serious, good faith consider-ation [to] workable race-neutral alternatives.” Grutter,539 U.S. at 339.

Although the University may have been able to in-crease minority admissions by selecting more of its stu-dent body through a percentage plan, that course wasnot a workable alternative. The University would havehad to minimize the portion of the class selected througha holistic analysis, J.A. 203a, which would have curtailedindividualized assessments, led to “a dramatic sacrificeof diversity” of all kinds, and stymied the University’sefforts to admit the most highly qualified students frommore rigorous high schools and non-Texas schools.Grutter, 539 U.S. at 339-340.

Until 2003, the University raised its entering classsize in an attempt to allow the number of Top Ten ad-missions—including admissions of underrepresentedminorities—to increase without sacrificing holistic ad-missions. S.J.A. 31a; p. 29, supra. But the larger enter-ing classes “threaten[ed] the quality of the educationalexperience” by straining the University’s faculty andbudgetary resources. S.J.A. 31a-32a. Also for budget-ary reasons, the University concluded that it could notindefinitely increase scholarship incentives designed toboost minority enrollment. Ibid.

Within the non-Top Ten portion of the class, the Uni-versity used the PAI analysis, without consideration ofrace, but found that that analysis alone did not result inmaterial minority gains. S.J.A. 30a-31a; Pet. App. 18a-19a. In 2003 and 2004, moreover, the proportion of non-Top Ten admittees who were Hispanic declined slightly,and the proportion of non-Top Ten admittees who were

33

African American remained stagnant. S.J.A. 45a; J.A.126a.

Thus, the University not only gave good-faith consid-eration to race-neutral alternatives, Grutter, 539 U.S. at339; it experimented with them over several years. Thisexperience demonstrated that the University could notincrease its underrepresented minority enrollmentsolely through such measures without sacrificing its em-phasis on wide-ranging diversity and the quality of theeducation provided to all students. Id. at 339-340.

d. Finally, the University’s policy is, as Grutter re-quires, “limited in time.” 539 U.S. at 342. The Univer-sity’s policy contemplates performing an internal reviewevery year and a formal review every five years.7 J.A.435a. The five-year timeframe reflects the University’scommitment to considering race only while it remainsnecessary, but is expansive enough to allow the Univer-sity to meaningfully assess trends in its enrollment re-sults.

2. Petitioner contends (Br. 38-42) that the Univer-sity’s program is not narrowly tailored because it hasyielded only minimal gains in minority enrollment rela-tive to the overall size of the entering class, suggestingthat race-neutral measures would have been equallyeffective. Petitioner is incorrect.

Petitioner asserts (Br. 39-40) that the University’sconsideration of race resulted in the enrollment of only33 additional Hispanic and African-American Texas resi-dents in 2008. Even accepting petitioner’s exclusion ofnon-Texas residents and her assumption that Hispanicsand African Americans would have been admitted in the

7 The University states that it has not finalized its five-year reviewbecause it has concluded that its analysis should be informed by thisCourt’s decision. See Resps. Br. 12 n.4.

34

same proportion each year (15.2%, Pet. Br. 39-40) with-out considering race, petitioner’s focus on 2008 is unrep-resentative. That year, Top Ten admissions rose from61% to 72% of admissions, reducing the number of avail-able non-Top Ten slots relative to previous years. S.J.A.157a, 170a; J.A. 414a. Petitioner’s methodology sug-gests that 126 additional underrepresented minoritiesfrom Texas schools were enrolled in 2006, and 173 in2007. S.J.A. 157a. Given that the University had only387 and 431 African Americans, and 1386 and 1470 His-panics, during those years—in freshman classes exceed-ing 7400—the admissions policy had a significant andpositive effect on diversity. S.J.A. 156a.

In any event, the fact that the University’s consider-ation of race produced measured rather than drasticincreases is the inevitable—and salutary—result of theUniversity’s structuring of its admissions policy so thatrace is but one factor within an individualized, holisticassessment of all kinds of diversity. These modest ef-fects confirm that the University is not operating thepolicy as a quota, and that it has designed the process tominimize the impact on non-minority students. SeeGrutter, 539 U.S. at 390-391 (Kennedy, J., dissenting)(describing plans that had an unpredictable—and rela-tively minor—effect on the number of admitted minori-ties as more likely to safeguard individualized consider-ation).

Petitioner is also wrong to suggest that Parents In-volved establishes that the University’s policy is uncon-stitutional on the ground that its costs outweigh its ben-efits. In Parents Involved, school districts used race todictate school assignments. Despite that predominant,mechanical use of race, the policies in question had onlyminimal impact, suggesting that other less restrictive

35

measures—which the school districts had not consid-ered—would have been as effective. 551 U.S. at 733-734.One such means would have been a “more nuanced, indi-vidual evaluation of school needs and student character-istics that might include race as a component” and thatwould be “informed by Grutter.” Id. at 790 (Kennedy,J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).That individualized evaluation is precisely what the Uni-versity has instituted. Parents Involved does not sug-gest that in order to be narrowly tailored, such a holis-tic, individualized policy must have drastic effects.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the court of appeals should be af-firmed.

Respectfully submitted.

JEH CHARLES JOHNSONGeneral CounselDepartment of Defense

PHILIP H. ROSENFELTDeputy General CounselDepartment of Education

WILLIAM B. SCHULTZActing General CounselDepartment of Health and

Human Services CAMERON F. KERRY

General CounselDepartment of Commerce

M. PATRICIA SMITHSolicitor of LaborDepartment of Labor

DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR.Solicitor General

THOMAS E. PEREZAssistant Attorney General

EDWIN S. KNEEDLERDeputy Solicitor General

GINGER D. ANDERSAssistant to the Solicitor

GeneralDIANA K. FLYNNSHARON M. MCGOWAN

Attorneys

AUGUST 2012