Fisher v. University of Texas (on behalf of the Civil Rights Clinic)

2autonomy and out <strong>of</strong> respect for its expertise, itsdecision deserves judicial deference.We submit this brief in support <strong>of</strong> respondents inorder to respectfully urge this Honorable Court touphold the decision <strong>of</strong> the United States Court <strong>of</strong>Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, affirm its own holdingin Grutter and find that UT Austin acted within itsconstitutionally protected zone <strong>of</strong> academic autonomywhen it reintroduced race as one factor in its admissiondecisions in order to seek the educationalbenefits flowing from diversity.SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTUniversities “occupy a special niche in our constitutionaltradition.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 329. Thisspecial niche is rooted in the First Amendment whichprovides that, within constitutional limits, a universityis free to determine on academic grounds “whomay teach, what may be taught, how it shall betaught, and who may be admitted to study.” Sweezyv. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 263 (1957). In thecontext <strong>of</strong> student body selection, the respect for academicautonomy has manifested itself in the Court’sdeference to a university’s good faith determinationthat a compelling state interest in student bodydiversity exists and that race can be one <strong>of</strong> the factorsconsidered in pursuit <strong>of</strong> such.The Court’s deference is neither without good reasonnor without constitutional limits. A diverse classnot only benefits classroom discussion but alsoprovides the opportunity for cross-cultural understandingin social settings. Additionally, the maintenance<strong>of</strong> a diverse student body communicates to thegeneral public the university’s willingness to engagediverse viewpoints – a necessary part <strong>of</strong> a vibrant