# IN THE SUPREME COURT O F TEX AS

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

## N O



## . 16-0773

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4


# W A L L A C E 

# L

. H A L L 

# , J R



# . , IN H IS O F F IC IA L C A P A C IT Y A S A 

# R E G E N T F O R 

# T H E



# U N IV E R S IT Y O F 

# T E X A S 

# S Y S T E M 

# , P E T IT IO N E R 

# ,

v.


# W IL L IA M 

# H

. M C 

# R A V E N 

# , IN H IS O F F IC IA L C A P A C IT Y A S 

# C H A N C E L L O R F O R 

# T H E



# U N IV E R S IT Y O F 

# T E X A S 

# S Y S T E M 

# , R E S P O N D E N T

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



## O N 

## P E T I T I O N F O R 

## R E V I E W F R O M T H E 

## C O U R T O F 

## A P P E A L S F O R T H E 

## T H I R D 

## D I S T R I C T O F 

## T E X A S



### 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



## J U S T I C E 

## G U Z M A N 

## , concur ring

.
Contrary to a well-known aphorism, silence is not alway s g olden. S i l en ce h as a cost. 1


## Silence allows for injus tice, st unts g rowth, and thwa rts chang e. The case befor e us today submits
further proof that e nlightenme nt comes fr om questions, even more than answe rs. 2 

## Following Reg ent Wallace L

. Hall J r.’s inquiries about the University of Texas’s admission

S e e E c c l e s i a s t e s 3 : 1 7 ( K i n g J a m e s ) ( “ T o e v e r y t h i n g t h e r e i s a s e a s o n
. . . a t i m e t o k e e p s i l e n c e , a n d a t i m e 1 t o s p e a k

. ” )

.

S e e M a t t h e w 7 : 7 ( K i n g J a m e s ) ( “ A s k , a n d i t s h a l l b e g i v e n y o u ; s e e k , a n d y e s h a l l f i n d ; k n o c k , a n d 2 i t s h a l l b e o p e n e d u n t o y o u
. ” ) ; W IS D O M F O R T H E S O U L : F IV E M IL L E N N IA O F P R E S C R IP T IO N S F O R S P IR IT U A L H E A L IN G 5 8 3 ( L a r r y C h a n g e d

. , 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ I t i s n o t t h e a n s w e r t h a t e n l i g h t e n s , b u t t h e q u e s t i o n
. ” ( q u o t i n g E U G È N E I O N E S C O , D E C O U V E R T E S ( 1 9 6 9 ) ) ) ; C L A U D E L E V I
- S T R A U S S , L E C R U E T L E C U IT [ T h e R a w a n d t h e C o o k e d ] 1 5 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , h t t p s : / / m o n o s k o p
. o r g / i m a g e s / 3 / 3 a / L e v i

- S t r a u s s

_ C l a u d e

_ M y t h o l o g i e s

_ 1

_ L e

_ c r u

_ e t

_ l e

_ c u i t

. p d f ( “ L e s a v a n t
n ’ e s t p a s l ’ h o m m e q u i f o u r n i t d e v r a i e s r é p o n s e s ; c ’ e s t c e l u i q u i p o s e l e s v r a i e s q u e s t i o n s
. ” ) ( “ T h e w i s e m a n d o e s n ’ t g i v e t h e r i g h t a n s w e r s , h e p o s e s t h e r i g h t q u e s t i o n s
. ” ( E n g
. t r a n s
. ) )

.

## prac tices, then-Chanc ellor Fr ancisc o Ciga rroa initiated an i nterna l investiga tion that uncover ed

conce rns about external influence s on admission decisions at UT. F urther inquiry and disclosures prompted the University to commission an independe nt external audit of ad m i s s i o n prac tices. I n pursuing the matter further , UT’s g overning body , the UT Sy stem Boa rd of Reg ents, expressed the

3


## conviction that “the integ rity of the admis s i o ns proce ss at a public university depends upon the
unbiased deter

mination of the appropr iate merits of eac h applicant; that attempts to unduly influence
the proce s s are inappropria te; and that a student should not be advanta g ed or g iven specia l
consideration as a re sult of . . . connec tions or financia l resourc es.” 4


## After an extensive six -month investiga tion i n volving sever al hundred thousand pag es of documents, the independe nt auditor, Kroll Associates, repor ted its finding s to the University shortly
afte r Admiral Wil liam H. McRaven’ s succe ssion as Chance llor of the UT Sy stem. Acc ording to the publicly rele ased K

roll Report, a pattern and prac tice of considering applicants outside the reg ular
admission proce ss exis ted at UT, causing “incr easing levels of tension” betwee n the Admissions
Offic e and t h e University President’s office , but resulting in only a “handf ul” of applicants being
admitted over the Admissions Offic e’s objection eac h y ear
. Thoug h an increas i n g number of 5 

## applicants had been considere d for admission in t h i s m an n er , Kroll found that a rela tively small

S e e T E X

. E D U C

. C O D E § § 5 1

. 3 5 2 , 6 5

. 1 1 , 6 5

. 3 1 , 6 7

. 0 2

. 3

K R O L L A S S O C IA T E S , F IN A L R E P O R T T O T H E O F F IC E O F T H E C H A N C E L L O R O F T H E U N IV E R S IT Y O F T E X A S S Y S T E M , 4

a t 1 1 ( F e b r u a r y 6 , 2 0 1 5 ) ( K r o l l R e p o r t ) ; s e e a l s o K r o l l R e p o r t , A p p
. A , E x
. A ( o u t l i n i n g t h e “ s c o p e o f w o r k ” )

.

I d

. a t 1 3

. 5


## 2

## number of “ arg uably less-qualified a

pplicants” a ctually

benef itted from the pra ctice. 6


## Whil e no evidenc e exis ted that s pots had been “save [d] ” for cer tain applicants or that any applicant had been admitted based on a quid pro quo or other inappropriate promise or exchang e,
Krol l d et ermined it was “rea dily appar ent t hat certain applicants are admitted at t he ins tiga tion of
the President over the assessment of the Admissions Offic e,” for a varie ty of rea sons. This aspec t 7


## of UT’s admission proce sses had not been publ i cl y disclosed, howeve r. Nor had undisclosed 8


## admi s s i o n p ractices been divulge d during the internal investiga tion, which Kroll char acte rized as constituting “mater ial omissions [t hat] misled the [i nterna l] inquiry .” I n that re gar d , the repor t
conclude d that key UT officia ls failed “to speak with the candor an d forthrightness expected of people in their r espec tive positions of trust and leader ship.” 9


## The Kroll Report conclude s that, while disconce rting , the admission prac tices did not violate

any exis ting law, rule, or policy

. Neve rtheless, issues of fairne ss and transpar ency wer e implicated
and g uidance for University officia ls was merited. Con s i d er i ng a varie ty of source s for best 1 0



## prac tices, Kro l l outlined rec ommended policies and proce dures for avoiding undue influence in university admissions, if the C hance llor and Board of Reg ents deter mined that such reforms were

“ T h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f a r g u a b l y l e s s - q u a l i f i e d a p p l i c a n t s w h o h a v e b e n e f i t t e d f r o m t h e h o l d s y s t e m a n d t h e [ U T ] 6 P r e s i d e n t ’ s o v e r s i g h t o f t h e h o l d c a n d i d a t e s a p p e a r s t o b e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l

. I n d e e d , f r o m 2 0 0 9 t o 2 0 1 4 K r o l l i d e n t i f i e d
a t o t a l o f o n l y 7 3 e n r o l l e d a p p l i c a n t s w h o w e r e a d m i t t e d w i t h b o t h a c o m b i n e d S A T s c o r e o f l e s s t h a n 1 1 0 0 a n d a h i g h
s c h o o l G P A o f l e s s t h a n 2

. 9

. ” I d

.
I d

. a t 1 3

- 1 4

. 7

I d

. a t 1 4

. 8

I d

. 9

I d

. a t 1 4 , 3 6

. 10


## 3

## nece ssary
. 1 1



## I n res p o n s e t o t he Kroll Report, Chance llor McRaven convene d a Blue Ribbon panel of
former chanc ellors and University presidents to revie w UT’s admission pro ce s s es in light of the
Kroll Report’s finding s and rec ommendations. The panel made rec ommendations for streng thening
the admission proce ss at UT. Thus, prompted by Reg ent Hall’s inquiries, defic iencies that
threa tened to under

mine the integ rity

of the a dmission process wer e exposed and a ddresse d. The upshot is that inquiries can and do s pur positive chang e whe n those with the power to

act are willing to eng ag e in critica l self-e x amination, as UT’s Chance llor and Boa rd of Reg ents did
in this case
. But does that mean there are no more inquiries to be made? Not in Reg ent Hall’s view.
And not from the perspe ctive of the two other reg ents who supported his motion to revie w the documents provided to Kr oll Associates. All ha ve expressed conce rn that reg ents must have the 1 2


## information they need to fulfill t h ei r d uties and responsibilities to the UT Sy stem, including “the leg al responsibil i t i es o f a fiduciar y in the manag ement of funds under the control of instit utions subject to the board’ s control and manag ement.” All have questioned whether reg ents—g uardia ns 1 3


## of the University ’s welfa

re and reputa tion—can make informed decisions if they do not have acc ess to the underlying data and doc uments on which re commended policie s and procedure s are based.

I d

. a t 9 3

. 11

R e g e n t s A l e x M

. C r a n b e r g a n d B r e n d a P e j o v i c h a l o n g w i t h t w o f o r m e r b o a r d m e m b e r s f i l e d a n a m i c u s b r i e f 12

s u p p o r t i n g H a l l ’ s r e q u e s t f o r u n r e s t r i c t e d a c c e s s t o t h e m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d t o K r o l l A s s o c i a t e s
. T h e s e c u r r e n t a n d f o r m e r r e g e n t s “ e m p h a s i z e t h a t a r e g e n t s h o u l d n o t h a v e c o m p l e t e l y u n f e t t e r e d a c c e s s t o d a t a a n d d o c u m e n t s c o n t a i n i n g p e r s o n a l l y i d e n t i f

i a b l e s t u d e n t i n f

o r m a t i o n , ” b u t e x p l a i n t h a t t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t o f t h e a n a l y s i s m u s t b e a p r e s u m p t i o n o f
o p e n n e s s r a t h e r t h a n a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y
.
T E X

. E D U C

. C O D E § 5 1

. 3 5 2

. 13


## 4

## Contex t is often vitally important, and as the Court observe s here , “fa cts are the g rea test ally ” in the quest for c hang e. I fully ag ree
. 1 4


## Yet, the re cord befor e the Court r efle cts that Reg ent Hall has not be en denied acc ess to the
documents Kroll Associates re v i ew ed

. Rather, he was offe red—a nd has acc epted—a cce ss to the
Kroll documents with cer tain student informa t i o n re d acte d, information that is, at least in some
respe cts, confide ntial under the Family Educa tional Rights and Privacy Act (F ERPA). He has also 1 5


## been offe red—but declined—a proce ss by which to obtain all the information he seeks, a proce ss that ostensibly balanc es privac y interests ag ainst an assura nce of leg itimate need. The proce ss r efle cts
the g overning body ’s judgme nt that an indi v i d u al rege nt’s interest in a particula r matter can

overc ome competing privac y rig hts of students, but not necessar ily or automatica lly

. The Boa rd-a dopted t wo -st ep proce ss may have aff orded Reg ent Hall acc ess to all the
information nece ssary to fulfill his obliga tions as a re gent without the nece ssity of judicial
interventi o n
. But must a University officia l imbued with broad oversig ht authority for the UT Sy stem—one who is c harg ed with se tting admission standa rds and subject to c riminal sanctions if
confide ntial information is misused—prove his mettle befor e obtaining the same de g ree of ac cess
the Boa rd has allowe d to third parties, like Kroll Associates, and my riad UT personne l e ng ag ed in
the reda ction proce ss? Should a reg ent’s rig ht of acc ess to confide ntial information be presumed 1 6

A n t e a t

_ _ _ . 14

2 0 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 3 2 g
. 15

S e e T e x
. A t t ’ y G e n
. O p
. N o
. K P

– 0 0 2 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) ( o p i n i n g t h a t t h e B o a r d o f R e g e n t s “ m a y n o t p r o h i b i t a n 16 i n d i v i d u a l r e g e n t f

r o m o b t a i n i n g a c c e s s t o r e c o r d s i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y t h a t a r e n e c e s s a r y t o f u l f i l l h i s d u t i e s a s a r e g e n t ” ) ; s e e a l s o a n t e a t

_ _ _ ( W IL L E T T , J

. , c o n c u r r i n g ) ( c i t i n g t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ’ s d e c i s i o n w i t h a p p r o v a l )

. 

## 5

## or nee d it be established whe n compelling privac y interests ar e at stake ? 1 7 

## Redressing g rieva

nces when rig hts a

nd duties collide is the brea d and butter of the judicial

sy stem, but our ability to decide the merits of thi s d i spute is constraine d by the limit s of our jurisdiction. And this is no trifling matter. So, while the separ ate writing s issued today may touch 1 8



## on the merits, the Court cannot, beca use dispositi on of this appea l ultimately turns on whether Hall

asser ts a valid ultra vires action ag ainst Chance llor McRaven. As the court of appea ls held, and as
this Court unanimously aff irms, the answer to that threshold m atter prec l u d es further inquiry into the merits of the pa

rties’ a rg uments.
T h e C o u rt faithfully applies ultra vires principles and our prec edent in holding th at
Chance llor McRaven, a dedica ted public serva nt committed to honoring the chain of command, was oblige d to follow the Boa

rd of Reg ents’ direc tives and there fore did not act ultra vires. I there fore 1 9 

## fully join the Court’s opinion and judgme nt. I write separ ately primarily to undersc ore that the issues
raised and the applicable leg al standards restric t the Court’s ab i l i t y to rea ch the merits of the underly ing dispute.
The circ umstances of this case also compel me to highlig ht the importance of judici o u s

“ W h o w i l l g u a r d t h e g u a r d i a n s ? ” J U V E N A L , S A T IR E V I 6 .3 4 6 -4 8 , h ttp ://w w w .th e l a t i n l i b r a r y
. c o m / j u v e n a l / 6

. s h t m l 1 7 ( “ s e d q u i s c u s t o d i e t i p s o s c u s t o d e s ” )

.

S e e , e

. g

. , H o u s

. B e l t & T e r m i n a l R y

. C o

. v

. C i t

y o f H o u s t o n , 4 8 7 S

. W

. 3 d 1 5 4 , 1 6 0 ( T e x
. 2 0 1 6 ) ( o b s e r v i n g 18

s o v e r e i g n a n d g o v e r n m e n t a l i m m u n i t y i m p l i c a t e s u b j e c t

- m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n ) ( c i t i n g R u s k S t a t e H o s p

. v

. B l a c k , 3 9 2 S

. W

. 3 d 8 8 , 9 1 ( T e x
. 2 0 1 2 ) ) ; G r e e n e v

. F a r m e r s I n s

. E x c h

. , 4 4 6 S

. W

. 3 d 7 6 1 , 7 6 7 ( T e x
. 2 0 1 4 ) ( c i t i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
a d v i s o r y - o p i n i o n r e s t r i c t i o n s i n d e c i d i n g n o t t o c o n s i d e r a n i s s u e w h e n t h e C o u r t ’ s d i s p o s i t i o n o f a n o t h e r i s s u e r e s o l v e d t h e p a r t i e s ’ d i s p u t e ) ; V

a l l e y B a p t i s t M e d

. C t r

. v

. G o n z a l e z , 3 3 S

. W

. 3 d 8 2 1 , 8 2 2 ( T e x
. 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ U n d e r a r t i c l e I I , s e c t i o n 1 o f t h e T e x a s C o n s t i t u t i o n , c o u r t s h a v e n o j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i s s u e a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n s
. ” )

.

A n t e a t

_ _ _ . 19


## 6

## inquiry , especi ally considering that the car etake rs of the University of Texas—an educational

instit ute “of the first class” —are char g ed with cultivating scholars a nd future leader s. Although 2 0


## members of a g roup must work within rules that provide essential order , the events prec ipitating the underly ing dispute confirm the benef its of being open to inquiry and examination. History , reple te
with examples of g rea t debac les that might have been avoided had someone spoken up, validates the principle that “ [i ]t is error only , and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry .” 2 1



## ___________________________ Eva M. Guzman J ustice

OP INION DELIVERED : J anuar y 27, 2017

T E X

. C O N S T

. , a r t

. V I I , § 1 0

. 20

T H O M A S P A I

N E , L e tte r A d d re ss e d to th e A d d r e s s e r s o n t h e L a t e P r o c l a m a t i o n , i n L IF E A N D W R IT IN G S O F T H O M A S 2 1 P A IN E 1 8 6 , 2 0 9 ( D a n i e l E d w i n W h e e l e r e d

. , 1 9 0 8 ) , h t t p s : / / a r c h i v e
. o r g / s t r e a m / l i f e w r i t i n g s o f

t h 0 5 p a i n # p a g e / n 0 / m o d e / 2 u p
. 

## 7