Page:Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. (2016) (slip opinion).pdf/49

Rh

favor.” Metro Broadcasting, 497 U. S., at 632 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting). And the Court’s willingness to allow this “discrimination against individuals of Asian descent in UT admissions is particularly troubling, in light of the long history of discrimination against Asian Americans, especially in education.” Brief for Asian American Legal Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae 6; see also, e.g., id., at 16–17 (discussing the placement of Chinese-Americans in “ ‘separate but equal’ ” public schools); Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U. S. 78, 81–82 (1927) (holding that a 9-year-old Chinese-American girl could be denied entry to a “white” school because she was “a member of the Mongolian or yellow race”). In sum, “[w]hile the Court repeatedly refers to the preferences as favoring ‘minorities,’. . . it must be emphasized that the discriminatory policies upheld today operate to exclude” Asian-American students, who “have not made [UT’s] list” of favored groups. Metro Broadcast­ing, supra, at 632 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting).

Perhaps the majority finds discrimination against Asian-American students benign, since Asian-Americans are “overrepresented” at UT. 645 F. Supp. 2d, at 606. But “[h]istory should teach greater humility.” Metro Broad­casting, 497 U. S., at 609 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). “ ‘[B]enign’ carries with it no independent meaning, but reflects only acceptance of the current generation’s conclu­ sion that a politically acceptable burden, imposed on particular citizens on the basis of race, is reasonable.” Id., at 610. Where, as here, the government has provided little explanation for why it needs to discriminate based on race, “ ‘there is simply no way of determining what classifica­ tions are “benign”. . . and what classifications are in fact motivated by illegitimate notions of racial inferiority or simple racial politics.’ ” Parents Involved, 551 U. S., at 783 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.) (quoting Croson, 488 U. S., at 493 (plurality opinion of O’Connor, J.)). By accepting the classroom study as proof that UT satisfied strict scrutiny,