Recent Development by Erin Albritton
Cheryl Hopwood, Douglas Carvell, Kenneth Elliott, and David Rogers applied for and were denied admission to the entering law school class for 1992 at the University of Texas (U.T.). Pursuant to the admissions policy then in effect, the four were ranked according to a numerical indexing system (Texas Index or TI). Based on this ranking, law school applicants were presumptively admitted, denied, or placed in a discretionary category for committee review. In 1992, the law school required different Texas Index scores for presumptive admittance and denial depending on the race of the applicant. Blacks and Mexican-Americans, as opposed to all other minorities and whites, were assigned a lower threshold index for favorable consideration by the law school. In addition, the applications of blacks and Mexican-American candidates were evaluated by a separate minority subcommittee. The law school also maintained separate waiting lists that were developed according to race. This race-conscious process was ultimately intended to help the law school achieve a class composition that was five-percent black and ten-percent Mexican-American.
Hopwood, Carvell, Elliott, and Rogers were all denied presumptive admission to the U.T. School of Law, and placed in a discretionary category. As white residents of Texas, the plaintiffs were required to have TI scores for discretionary consideration that were higher than those required of black and Mexican-American candidates. Their applications were reviewed by subcommittees, and each of the four candidates was ultimately denied admission to the 1992 law school class.
Hopwood, Carvell, Elliott, and Rogers filed suit in federal district court under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, alleging that the U.T. School of Law admissions process amounted to unconstitutional racial discrimination. The district court struck down part of the admissions scheme as violative of the plaintiffs' equal protection rights. The court held, however, that the law school could continue to use race as a factor when evaluating applicants. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision and held that the U.T. School of Law's race-based admissions policy was unconstitutional because (1) the law school failed to meet the evidentiary burden of proving a compelling interest in overcoming the present effects of past discrimination in education and (2) the consideration of race for the purpose of achieving a diverse student body is not a compelling interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 2581 (1996).
About the Author
Erin Albritton.
Citation
71 Tul. L. Rev. 303 (1996)