Page:Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. (2016) (slip opinion).pdf/47

Rh

unconcerned that Asian-Americans “may be made to feel isolated or may be seen as. . . ‘spokesperson[s]’ of their race or ethnicity.” Id., at 69a; see id., at 25a. And unless the University is engaged in unconstitutional racial bal­ancing based on Texas demographics (where Hispanics outnumber Asian-Americans), see Part II–C–1, supra, it seemingly views the classroom contributions of Asian-American students as less valuable than those of Hispanic students. In UT’s view, apparently, “Asian Americans are not worth as much as Hispanics in promoting ‘cross-racial understanding,’ breaking down ‘racial stereotypes,’ and enabling students to ‘better understand persons of differ­ent races.’ ” Brief for Asian American Legal Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae 11 (representing 117 Asian-American organizations). The majority opinion effectively endorses this view, crediting UT’s reliance on the class­ room study as proof that the University assessed its need for racial discrimination (including racial discrimination that undeniably harms Asian-Americans) “with care.” Ante, at 15.

While both the majority and the Fifth Circuit rely on UT’s classroom study, see ante, at 15; 758 F. 3d, at 658– 659, they completely ignore its finding that Hispanics are better represented than Asian-Americans in UT class­ rooms. In fact, they act almost as if Asian-American students do not exist. See ante, at 14 (mentioning Asian-Americans only a single time outside of parentheticals, and not in the context of the classroom study); 758 F. 3d,