Law & Courts

Court Rejects Race-Based Admissions at Law School

By Mark Walsh — March 27, 1996 2 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

A federal appeals court last week struck down the use of racial preferences in admissions at the University of Texas law school, saying that government affirmative-action programs are not justified for the purpose of promoting racial diversity.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit added new fuel to the nationwide debate over affirmative action and raised fears throughout higher education that minority preferences in admissions are in jeopardy.

“This will lead to the end of most programs [in higher education] with these types of ratios,” said Theodore B. Olson, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs who challenged the admissions preferences.

The ruling was “a victory for equal rights for all and special preferences for none,” said Gov. Pete Wilson of California, who last year successfully lobbied his state university system’s board of regents to ban racial and gender preferences in admissions.

Robert H. Atwell, the president of the Washington-based American Council on Education, an umbrella group representing higher education, emphasized that the ruling was limited to the states included in the Fifth Circuit--Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Higher education remains committed to affirmative action, he said.

“Inclusionary efforts and the promotion of diversity are indispensable if the nation’s colleges and universities are to serve their core missions,” he said.

Special Preferences

In Hopwood v. Texas, four white applicants who were rejected for admission to the University of Texas law school in Austin challenged the school’s special preferences for African-Americans and Mexican-Americans. Other Hispanics and members of other minority groups did not receive special consideration.

Although the judges unanimously struck down the law school’s admissions program as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, only two held that diversity was an inappropriate goal for affirmative action.

“Diversity fosters, rather than minimizes, the use of race,” said the March 18 opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith. “It treats minorities as a group, rather than as individuals.”

The panel said that affirmative action to remedy past discrimination remains valid.

But the law school’s program could not be justified on such grounds because the school long ago eliminated the vestiges of past discrimination against black students and was never found to discriminate against Mexican-Americans, the judges ruled.

In a concurrence, U.S. Circuit Judge Jacques L. Weiner Jr. said the majority was wrongly casting aside the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1978 ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which said that universities could consider race among several factors in admissions.

University of Texas officials last week temporarily suspended all admissions and were considering whether to seek a rehearing before the full 5th Circuit court or an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Though the ruling created widespread uncertainty among admissions officials, it does not directly require other universities to alter their affirmative-action programs.

A version of this article appeared in the March 27, 1996 edition of Education Week as Court Rejects Race-Based Admissions at Law School

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Artificial Intelligence Webinar
Managing AI in Schools: Practical Strategies for Districts
How should districts govern AI in schools? Learn practical strategies for policies, safety, transparency, and responsible adoption.
Content provided by Lightspeed Systems
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Reading & Literacy Webinar
Two Jobs, One Classroom: Strengthening Decoding While Teaching Grade-Level Text
Discover practical, research-informed practices that drive real reading growth without sacrificing grade-level learning.
Content provided by EPS Learning
Jobs Virtual Career Fair for Teachers and K-12 Staff
Find teaching jobs and K-12 education jubs at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Supreme Court’s Gender Identity Ruling Leaves Schools Seeking Clarity
Advocates say they would welcome more from the Supreme Court on gender-notification policies.
7 min read
The Supreme Court is photographed, Friday, Feb. 27, 2026, in Washington.
The Supreme Court is photographed, Friday, Feb. 27, 2026, in Washington. The high court recently ruled that California policies that sometimes limit or discourage schools from disclosing information to parents about children’s gender transitions and expressions at school likely violate parents’ constitutional rights
Rahmat Gul/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Backs Parents in School Gender Disclosure Fight
The Supreme Court restored an injunction blocking California policies on student gender transitions
8 min read
Teacher’s aide Amelia Mester, wrapped in a Pride flag, urges Escondido Union High School District not to have employees notify parents if they believe a student may be transgender in November 2025. A policy on the issue in the city’s elementary school district is the subject of a federal class-action lawsuit in which a judge just sided against the district.
Teacher’s aide Amelia Mester, wrapped in a Pride flag, urges Escondido Union High School District not to have employees notify parents if they believe a student may be transgender at a meeting in November 2025. Two parents and two teachers from the district sued in 2023, challenging California state guidance concerning student gender transitions and parental notification. The U.S. Supreme Court has now reinstated a lower-court decision overturning those state policies.
Charlie Neuman for The San Diego Union-Tribune/TNS
Law & Courts Appeals Court Allows Louisiana Ten Commandments Displays to Proceed
The court said it was premature to rule on the constitutionality of La. Ten Commandments displays.
3 min read
Students work under Ten Commandments and Bill of Rights posters on display in a classroom at Lehman High School in Kyle, Texas, Thursday, Oct. 16, 2025.
Students work under Ten Commandments and Bill of Rights posters on display in a classroom at Lehman High School in Kyle, Texas, Oct. 16, 2025. A federal appeals court has lifted a lower-court injunction blocking a Louisiana law that requires Ten Commandments displays, clearing the way for the law to take effect.
Eric Gay/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Strikes Trump Tariffs in Case Brought by Educational Toy Companies
Two educational toy companies were among the leading challengers to the president's tariff policies
3 min read
Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Members of the U.S. Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. On Feb. 20, 2026, the court ruled 6-3 to strike down President Donald Trump's broad tariff policies, ruling that they were not authorized by the federal statute that he cited for them.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP