Page:Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. (2016) (slip opinion).pdf/63

Rh

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/28,30. In reality, however, the student may feel—if anything—less isolated in Mississippi, where African-Americans are more prevalent in the population at large.

If, on the other hand, state demographics are not driv­ing UT’s interest in avoiding racial isolation, then its treatment of Asian-American students is hard to under­stand. As the District Court noted, “the gross number of Hispanic students attending UT exceeds the gross number of Asian-American students.” 645 F. Supp. 2d, at 606. In 2008, for example, UT enrolled 1,338 Hispanic freshmen and 1,249 Asian-American freshmen. Supp. App. 156a. UT never explains why the Hispanic students—but not the Asian-American students—are isolated and lonely enough to receive an admissions boost, notwithstanding the fact that there are more Hispanics than Asian-Americans in the student population. The anecdotal statements from UT officials certainly do not indicate that Hispanics are somehow lonelier than Asian-Americans.

Ultimately, UT has failed to articulate its interest in preventing racial isolation with any clarity, and it has provided no clear indication of how it will know when such isolation no longer exists. Like UT’s purported interests in demographic parity, classroom diversity, and intrara­cial diversity, its interest in avoiding racial isolation can­ not justify the use of racial preferences.

Even assuming UT is correct that, under Grutter, it need only cite a generic interest in the educational bene­fits of diversity, its plan still fails strict scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored. Narrow tailoring requires “a careful judicial inquiry into whether a university could achieve sufficient diversity without using racial classifica­tions.” Fisher I, 570 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 10). “If a ‘ “nonracial approach. . . could promote the substantial