Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

8 

FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

may  not  be  denied  enforcement  of  rights  to  which  he  is
entitled  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  be-
cause  of  action  taken  or  threatened  in  defiance  of  such 
rights”).  Within  a  matter  of  years,  the  warning  became
reality: After being ordered to desegregate, Prince Edward
County closed its public schools from the summer of 1959 
until  the  fall  of  1964.  See  R.  Sarratt,  The  Ordeal  of  De-
segregation 237 (1966).  Despite this fact, the Court never
backed  down  from  its  rigid  enforcement  of  the  Equal 
Protection Clause’s antidiscrimination principle.

In  this  case,  of  course,  Texas  has  not  alleged  that  the
University will close if it is prohibited from discriminating 
based  on  race.    But  even  if  it  had,  the  foregoing  cases
make  clear  that  even  that  consequence  would  not  justify 
its  use of  racial  discrimination.  It  follows, a fortiori,  that 
the putative educational benefits of student body diversity 
cannot  justify  racial  discrimination:  If  a  State  does  not
have a compelling interest in the existence of a university,
it  certainly  cannot  have  a  compelling  interest  in  the  sup-
posed  benefits  that  might  accrue  to  that  university  from
racial discrimination.  See Grutter, 539 U. S., at 361 (opin-
ion  of  THOMAS,  J.)  (“[A]  marginal  improvement  in  legal
education  cannot  justify  racial  discrimination  where  the
Law  School  has  no  compelling  interest  either  in  its  exis- 
tence  or  in  its  current  educational  and  admissions  poli-
cies”).  If the Court were actually applying strict scrutiny,
it would require Texas either to close the University or to
stop discriminating against applicants based on their race.
The Court has put other schools to that choice, and there
is no reason to treat the University differently. 

2 

It  is  also  noteworthy  that,  in  our  desegregation  cases, 
we rejected arguments that are virtually identical to those
advanced by the University today.  The University asserts,
for  instance,  that  the  diversity  obtained  through  its  dis-