Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

20 

FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

same race as those admitted as a result of racial discrimi-
nation.  In this case, for example, most blacks and Hispanics 
attending the University were admitted without discrimina-
tion  under  the  Top  Ten  Percent  plan,  but  no  one  can
distinguish  those  students  from  the  ones  whose  race 
played a role in their admission.  “When blacks [and His-
panics] take positions in the highest places of government, 
industry, or academia, it is an open question  . . . whether 
their skin color played a part in their advancement.”  See 
Grutter,  539  U.  S.,  at  373  (opinion  of  THOMAS,  J.).  “The 
question  itself  is  the  stigma—because  either  racial  dis-
crimination did play a role, in which case the person may 
be  deemed  ‘otherwise  unqualified,’  or  it  did  not,  in  which
case  asking  the  question  itself  unfairly  marks  those  . . .
who  would  succeed  without  discrimination.”    Ibid.  Al-
though  cloaked  in  good  intentions,  the  University’s  racial
tinkering harms the very people it claims to be helping. 

* 

* 

* 

For  the  foregoing  reasons,  I  would  overrule  Grutter. 
However,  because  the  Court  correctly  concludes  that  the
Court  of  Appeals  did  not  apply  strict  scrutiny,  I  join  its
opinion.