Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 29

12 

FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

their  creation  in  order  to  satisfy  our  theory  as  to  how 
society  ought  to  be  organized”).  The  University’s  argu-
ments  to  this  effect  are  similarly  insufficient  to  justify
discrimination.3 

3 
The  University’s  arguments  today  are  no  more  persua-
sive  than  they  were  60  years  ago.  Nevertheless,  despite 
rejecting  identical  arguments  in  Brown,  the  Court  in 
Grutter  deferred  to  the  University’s  determination  that
the diversity obtained by racial discrimination would yield 
educational  benefits.  There  is  no  principled  distinction
between  the  University’s  assertion  that  diversity  yields
educational  benefits  and  the  segregationists’  assertion
that segregation yielded those same benefits.  See Grutter, 
539  U.  S.,  at  365–366  (opinion  of  THOMAS,  J.)  (“Con-
tained within today’s majority opinion is the seed of a new 
constitutional  justification  for  a  concept  I  thought  long
and  rightly  rejected—racial  segregation”).    Educational 
benefits  are  a  far  cry  from  the  truly  compelling  state
interests that we previously required to justify use of racial 
classifications. 

B 

My view of the Constitution is the one advanced by the 
plaintiffs  in  Brown:  “[N]o  State  has  any  authority  under 
—————— 

3 While the arguments advanced by the University in defense of dis-
crimination are the same as those advanced by the segregationists, one
obvious  difference  is  that  the  segregationists  argued  that  it  was 
segregation that was necessary to obtain the alleged benefits, whereas
the  University  argues  that  diversity  is  the  key.    Today,  the  segre-
gationists’  arguments  would  never  be  given  serious  considera-
tion.  But see M. Plocienniczak, Pennsylvania School Experiments with
‘Segregation,’  CNN  (Jan.  27,  2011),  http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/27 
/pennsylvania.segregation/index.html?_s=PM:US  (as  visited  June  21, 
2013, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file).  We should be equally 
hostile to the University’s repackaged version of the same arguments in 
support of its favored form of racial discrimination.