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

20no constitutional objection to the goal <strong>of</strong> consideringrace as one modest factor among many others toachieve diversity, but an educational institution mustensure . . . that each applicant receives individualconsideration and that race does not become apredominant factor[.]”); see also Parents Involved, 551U.S. at 788-89 (opinion <strong>of</strong> Kennedy, J., concurring)(“If school authorities are concerned that the studentbodycompositions <strong>of</strong> certain schools interfere withthe objective <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fering an equal educational opportunityto all <strong>of</strong> their students, they are free to deviserace-conscious measures to address the problem in ageneral way and without treating each student indifferent fashion solely on the basis <strong>of</strong> a systematic,individual typing by race.”). In doing so, the institutionmust value not only the racial diversity the individual’senrollment would provide, but any diverseaspect <strong>of</strong> the applicant’s experience. See Gratz, 539U.S. at 271-72 (rejecting a program where the “onlyconsideration that accompanies this distribution <strong>of</strong>points [was] a factual review <strong>of</strong> an application todetermine whether an individual is a member <strong>of</strong> one<strong>of</strong> these minority groups.”). The program must be“‘flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements <strong>of</strong>diversity in light <strong>of</strong> the particular qualifications <strong>of</strong>each applicant, and to place them on the same footingfor consideration, although not necessarily accordingthem the same weight.’” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 334(quoting Bakke, 438 U.S. at 317 (opinion <strong>of</strong> Powell,J.)).