The majority opinion in the case, Fisher v. University of Texas, was penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The not-for-profit Project on Fair Representation represented Abigail Fisher, who challenged the constitutionality of UT’s admission process. The University uses a two-tiered system that first admits students who graduated in the top 10% of their high school class, and then fills the remainder of University openings with a holistic review of applicants that includes race.

The decision drew praise from the American Bar Association and the University of Texas at Austin President Gregory L. Fenves. “The court has affirmed UT’s efforts to develop a diverse student body that brings with it educational benefits for all students. Our pursuit of excellence is grounded in the university’s public mission to provide the highest quality education for every student,” Fenves said. “Diversity is essential to carry out that mission. The educational benefits of diversity for all students enhance The University of Texas at Austin, the higher education community, and the nation.”

Fenves said preparing graduates for a diverse world is part of the mission of the school, and lauded the opinion for allowing the University to continue to do so by considering race when admitting applicants. “… Race continues to matter in American life. It affects individuals and communities. We must make sure all of our students are able to excel in the wider world when they leave campus — educating them in an environment as diverse as the United States is one of the most effective ways to do so."

Paulette Brown, president of the American Bar Association praised the decision for protecting admissions programs that help improve diversity in the legal profession. “Justice Kennedy’s opinion underscores the ‘enduring challenge’ to our nation’s education system to address diversity and maintain the ‘constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity.’ Despite considerable progress in terms of diversity and inclusion, admissions policies that consider race as one factor among many remain crucial for the advancement of racial and ethnic diversity at colleges and universities and other similar institutions,” she said.

Kennedy acknowledged the importance of a diverse student body in his opinion, but pointed out the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment and dignity requires balance. He also noted it is the responsibility of UT to continually asses their admissions program. “Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining … intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission. But still, 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,” Kennedy said, adding, “The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement.”

Justice Clarence Thomas outright admonished the policy and issued a brief dissent separate from the longer narrative penned by Justice Samuel Alito, that broadly rejected the use of racial classifications. “The Constitution abhors classifications based on race because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all,” Thomas said.

Edward Blum, president of the Project on Fair Representation echoed that sentiment, and said treating people differently due to their race is a divisive practice. “Racial classifications and preferences are one of the most polarizing policies in America today. As long as universities like the Univ. of Texas continue to treat applicants differently by race and ethnicity, the social fabric that holds us together as a nation will be weakened,” he said in a statement. “Today’s decision is a sad step backward for the original, colorblind principles to our civil rights laws.”