Page:Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. (2016) (slip opinion).pdf/55

Rh

square with UT’s prior statements to this Court in the briefing and oral argument in Fisher I. Moreover, al­though UT reframes its argument, it continues to assert that it needs affirmative action to admit privileged minori­ties. For instance, UT’s brief highlights its interest in admitting “[t]he black student with high grades from Andover.” Brief for Respondents 33. Similarly, at oral argument, UT claimed that its “interests in the educational benefits of diversity would not be met if all of [the] minority students were. . . coming from depressed socio­ economic backgrounds.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 53 (Dec. 9, 2015); see also id., at 43, 45.

Ultimately, UT’s intraracial diversity rationale relies on the baseless assumption that there is something wrong with African-American and Hispanic students admitted through the Top Ten Percent Plan, because they are “from the lower-performing, racially identifiable schools.” Id., at 43; see id., at 42–43 (explaining that “the basis” for UT’s