STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0418-1607504.), filed by Students For Fair Admissions. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Edward Blum)(BOYLE, WILLIAM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. _____
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA; UNIVERSITY OF
NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS; JOHN C.
FENNEBRESQUE, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR., JOAN
TEMPLETON PERRY, ROGER AIKEN, HANNAH D. GAGE,
ANN B. GOODNIGHT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, PETER D.
HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON,
JAMES L. HOLMES, JR. RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY
KOTIS III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B.
LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W.
EDWIN MCMAHAN, W. G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, HARI H.
MATH, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R.
DOYLE PARRISH, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M.
POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR., J.
CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F.
TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK III, PHILLIP D. WALKER,
LAURA I. WILEY, as members of the Board of Governors in their
official capacities; THOMAS W. ROSS, President of the University
of North Carolina in his Official Capacity; UNIVERSITY OF
NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL; CAROL L. FOLT,
Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in her
Official Capacity; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
BOARD OF TRUSTEES; W. LOWRY CAUDILL, ALSTON
GARDNER, SALLIE SHUPING-RUSSELL, JEFFERSON W.
BROWN, PHILLIP L. CLAY, HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE,
DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS, CHARLES G. DUCKETT,
PETER T. GRAUER, KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS, STEVEN
LERNER, DWIGHT D. STONE, ANDREW HENRY POWELL, as
members of the Board of Trustees in their Official Capacity;
JAMES W. DEAN JR., Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost in
his Official Capacity; STEPHEN M. FARMER, Vice Provost,
Enrollment, and Undergraduate Admissions in his Official Capacity,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED

Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. brings this action to obtain, among
other relief, a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §
2201, that Defendants have employed and are employing racially and ethnically
discriminatory policies and procedures in administering the undergraduate admissions
program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC-Chapel Hill”) in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (“Title VI”). UNC-Chapel Hill’s
undergraduate admissions policies and procedures have injured and continue to injure
Plaintiff’s members by intentionally and unconstitutionally discriminating against
them on the basis of their race and ethnicity.
I.

INTRODUCTION
1.

This is an action brought under the Fourteenth Amendment and federal

civil rights laws to prohibit UNC-Chapel Hill from engaging in intentional
discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity. “Classifications of citizens solely on
the basis of race are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are
founded upon the doctrine of equality. They threaten to stigmatize individuals by
reason of their membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility.” Shaw v.
Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 643 (1993) (citations and quotations omitted).

As a

consequence, racial classifications are highly disfavored and have been permitted only
when there is a compelling government interest that cannot be met through raceneutral means. In the educational setting, “diversity” is the only interest the Supreme
2

Court has found compelling. Even then, the Supreme Court has mandated strict
judicial scrutiny to ensure that an academic institution is actually pursuing that
interest and that it is absolutely necessary to employ racial preferences in order to
achieve a diverse student body.
2.

Yet the Supreme Court has always had misgivings about its decision to

permit any use of racial preferences in university admissions. See City of Richmond v.
J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 518 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment). The Supreme Court was nevertheless convinced to
permit racial preferences in pursuit of diversity for two reasons. First, based mainly
on an amicus brief that Harvard submitted, the Supreme Court was led to believe that
schools only would “take account of race as one, nonpredominant factor in a system
designed to consider each applicant as an individual.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S.
306, 387 (2003) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (citing Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke,
438 U.S. 265, 289-91 (1978)). Second, the Supreme Court believed that the “strict
scrutiny standard [would] operate in a manner generally consistent with the
imperative of race neutrality, because it forbids the use even of narrowly drawn racial
classifications except as a last resort.”

Croson, 488 U.S. at 519 (Kennedy, J.,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
3.

The Supreme Court was misled. No college or university, including

UNC-Chapel Hill or Harvard itself, merely uses race contextually to fill the last few
seats in the entering freshman class. Indeed, UNC-Chapel Hill adamantly denies that
it uses race in this manner. UNC-Chapel Hill, like all other colleges and universities,
3

labels every applicant by race on the claim that it is pursuing the so-called “critical
mass” diversity objective. That creates two problems for UNC-Chapel Hill. First, by
failing to implement the “Harvard Plan” rationale that led to the permissibility of
racial admissions preferences, UNC-Chapel Hill has deprived the Court of any
continuing “authority to approve the use of race in pursuit of student diversity.”
Grutter, 539 U.S. at 394 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). Second, UNC-Chapel Hill’s
claimed interest—critical mass—never should have been endorsed and should be
outlawed once and for all. “[T]he concept of critical mass is a delusion used … to
mask [an] attempt to make race an automatic factor in most instances and to achieve
numerical goals indistinguishable from quotas.” Id. at 389.
4.

Worse still, UNC-Chapel Hill is not even pursuing its claimed “critical

mass” interest.

Rather, even under governing precedent, UNC-Chapel Hill is

violating the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws for at least two
reasons. First, UNC-Chapel Hill is not using race merely as a “plus factor” in
admissions decisions.

Rather, UNC-Chapel Hill’s racial preference for each

underrepresented minority student (which equates to a penalty imposed upon white
and Asian-American applicants) is so large that race becomes the “defining feature of
his or her application.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 337. Only using race or ethnicity as a
dominant factor in admissions decisions could, for example, account for the disparate
treatment

of

high-achieving

Asian-American

and

white

applicants

underrepresented minority applicants with inferior academic credentials.

and
UNC-

Chapel Hill’s admissions decisions simply are not explainable on grounds other than
4

race. High-achieving Asian-American and white applicants are as broadly diverse
and eclectic in their abilities and interests as any other group seeking admission to
UNC-Chapel Hill. They compete in interscholastic sports, are members of the school
band, work part-time jobs after school, travel, and engage in volunteer work just like
everyone else. It is not a lack of non-academic achievement that is keeping them
from securing admission. It is UNC-Chapel Hill’s dominant use of racial preferences
to their detriment.
5.

Second, UNC-Chapel Hill is using race in admissions decisions when

race-neutral alternatives can achieve diversity. As other elite universities have shown,
increased utilization of non-race-based criteria, such as socioeconomic preferences,
can promote diversity about as well as racial preferences.

This approach is

particularly effective when combined with increased use of financial aid, scholarships,
and recruitment to attract and enroll minority applicants and the elimination of
admissions policies and practices, such as legacy preferences and early admission,
which operate to the disadvantage of minority applicants. Further, eliminating racial
preferences at UNC-Chapel Hill will alleviate the substantial harm these
discriminatory policies cause to those minority applicants who receive such
admissions preferences, the North Carolina community, and society as a whole.
Racial preferences are a dangerous tool and may only be used as a last resort. There
is now overwhelming evidence that race-neutral alternatives render reliance on racial
preferences unnecessary.

5

6.

UNC-Chapel Hill’s refusal to avail itself of race-neutral alternatives is

especially troubling given that it knows at least one form of socioeconomic preference
would be workable. UNC-Chapel Hill conducted its own study to determine whether
granting automatic admission to North Carolina students in the top ten percent of their
high school class would work about as well as racial preferences in achieving
diversity. The study showed that a percentage plan would in fact work better than
racial preferences in achieving diversity in that such a plan would boost minority
enrollment.

The pretextual reasons UNC-Chapel Hill gave for deeming this

alternative unworkable, such as a trivial decrease in average SAT scores, will never
survive strict judicial scrutiny given how disfavored the use of race is under the
Fourteenth Amendment. The fact that it requires a lawsuit to make UNC-Chapel Hill
install a race-neutral alternative that it already knows will increase diversity on its
campus is discouraging.

It was UNC-Chapel Hill’s responsibility to take full

advantage of this alternative on its own accord, not to stubbornly resist abandoning
racial preferences until a federal court orders it to do so.
7.

Accordingly, there is no doubt that UNC-Chapel Hill is in violation of

the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws. The only question is the
proper judicial response. Given what is occurring at UNC-Chapel Hill and other
schools, the proper response is the outright prohibition of racial preferences in
university admissions—period. Allowing this issue to be litigated in case after case
will only “perpetuate the hostilities that proper consideration of race is designed to
avoid.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 394 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). UNC-Chapel Hill and
6

other academic institutions cannot and should not be trusted with the awesome and
historically dangerous tool of racial classification. As in the past, they will use any
leeway the Supreme Court grants them to use racial preferences in college
admissions—under whatever rubric—to engage in racial stereotyping and other forms
of discrimination to advance their social-engineering agenda. Strict scrutiny has
proven to be no match for concerted discrimination hidden behind the veil of
“holistic” admissions. There may be times when social problems can be solved
democratically. But massive resistance to racial equality is not one of them. See
Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, Kan., 349 U.S. 294 (1955). “The moral imperative
of racial neutrality is the driving force of the Equal Protection Clause …. Structural
protections may be necessities if moral imperatives are to be obeyed.” Croson, 488
U.S. at 518 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.

This action arises under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution and under federal civil rights statutes 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981,
1983, and 2000d et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1343.
9.

Venue is proper in the Middle District of North Carolina under 28

U.S.C. § 1391 because the events giving rise to the claims detailed herein occurred in
the Middle District of North Carolina.

7

III.

THE PARTIES
A.

Plaintiff

10.

Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (“SFFA”) is an Internal

Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) organization formed for the purpose of defending
human and civil rights secured by law, including the right of individuals to equal
protection under the law, through litigation and any other lawful means.

More

specifically, SFFA seeks to promote and protect the right of the public to be free from
discrimination on the basis of race in higher education admissions.
11.

SFFA is a coalition of prospective applicants and applicants to higher

education institutions who were denied admission to higher education institutions,
their parents, and other individuals who support the organization’s purpose and
mission of eliminating racial discrimination in higher education admissions. SFFA
has members throughout the country.
12.

Edward Blum is the President of SFFA. See Exhibit A, Declaration of

Edward Blum (“Blum Dec.”) ¶ 2.
13.

SFFA has at least one member (“Applicant”) who applied for and was

denied admission to UNC-Chapel Hill’s 2014 entering class. Blum Dec. ¶ 4.
14.

Applicant is white. Blum Dec. ¶ 5.

15.

Applicant had a weighted GPA of 4.4839 at a public high school that

U.S. News and World Report ranks as one of the top five high schools in North
Carolina and in the top 1 percent of all high schools nationwide. Blum Dec. ¶ 6.

8

16.

Applicant achieved a score of 2180 on the SAT I (800 Reading (Perfect)

+ 710 Math + 670 Writing). Applicant achieved a perfect score of 800 for SAT II
Physics and a perfect score of 800 for SAT II Math. Applicant had a composite ACT
score of 32. Blum Dec. ¶ 7.
17.

Applicant completed five Advanced Placement (“AP”) courses, scoring

a perfect “5” on all but one AP exam and scoring a “4” on the other. Applicant was
named an AP Scholar of Distinction. Blum Dec. ¶ 8.
18.

While

in

high

school,

Applicant

extracurricular and volunteer activities.

participated

in

numerous

Among other things, Applicant was a

member of the varsity cross country team, a teaching associate for students in Latin II,
completed a collegiate computer programming course, and held a part-time job. Blum
Dec. ¶ 9.
19.

Applicant was denied the opportunity to compete for admission to

UNC-Chapel Hill on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of race or
ethnicity due to UNC-Chapel Hill’s discriminatory admissions policies. Blum Dec. ¶
10.
20.

Applicant was accepted to and has enrolled at another university in

North Carolina. Applicant is ready, able, and intends to seek to transfer to the UNCChapel Hill when it stops discriminating against applicants on the basis of race and
ethnicity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws.
Blum Dec. ¶ 11.

9

21.

SFFA has members who are currently in high school and intend to apply

for admission to UNC-Chapel Hill (“Future Applicants”). Blum Dec. ¶ 12.
22.

Future Applicants will be denied the opportunity to compete for

admission to UNC-Chapel Hill on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of
race or ethnicity due to UNC-Chapel Hill’s discriminatory admissions policies. As a
result, Future Applicants may be denied admission to UNC-Chapel Hill because of
these discriminatory policies. Blum Dec. ¶ 13.
23.

SFFA has members whose children intend to apply for admission to

UNC-Chapel Hill (“Parents”). Blum Dec. ¶ 14.
24.

Parents’ children will be denied the opportunity to compete for

admission to UNC-Chapel Hill on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of
race or ethnicity due to UNC-Chapel Hill’s discriminatory admissions policies. As a
result, Parents’ children may be denied admission to UNC-Chapel Hill because of
these discriminatory policies. Blum Dec. ¶ 15.
B.

Defendants

25.

The University of North Carolina is a public, multi-campus university

system authorized and governed by Article 9, Section 8 of the North Carolina
Constitution and Chapter 116 of the North Carolina Revised Statutes. It is composed
of the following constituent institutions: Appalachian State University, East Carolina
University, Elizabeth City State University, Fayetteville State University, North
Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, North Carolina Central
University, North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics, North Carolina State
10

University at Raleigh, The University of North Carolina at Asheville, The University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, The
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, The University of North Carolina at
Pembroke, The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, University of North
Carolina School of the Arts, Western Carolina University, and Winston-Salem State
University.
26.

The University of North Carolina is funded by the State of North

Carolina and the Federal Government. As a recipient of direct and indirect financial
assistance from the Federal Government, the University of North Carolina, as well as
all of its programs and activities, including those of UNC-Chapel Hill, are subject to
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et. seq.
27.

The University of North Carolina Board of Governors is the policy-

making body charged with the general determination, control, supervision,
management, and governance of all affairs of the University of North Carolina’s
constituent institutions, including UNC-Chapel Hill. The Board of Governors elects
the President of the University of North Carolina, who administers the university.
28.

John C. Fennebresque, W. Louis Bissette, Jr., Joan Templeton Perry,

M.D., Roger Aiken, Hannah D. Gage, Ann B. Goodnight, H. Frank Grainger, Peter D.
Hans, Thomas J. Harrelson, Henry W. Hinton, James L. Holmes, Jr., Rodney E.
Hood, W. Marty Kotis III, G. Leroy Lail, Scott Lampe, Steven B. Long, Joan G.
MacNeill, Mary Ann Maxwell, W. Edwin McMahan, W. G. Champion Mitchell, Hari
H. Nath, Anna Spangler Nelson, Alex Parker, R. Doyle Parrish, Therence O. Pickett,
11

David M. Powers, Robert S. Rippy, Harry Leo Smith, Jr., J. Craig Souza, George A.
Sywassink, Richard F. Taylor, Raiford Trask III, Phillip D. Walker, and Laura I.
Wiley are the voting members of the University of North Carolina Board of
Governors. Each member is elected by the North Carolina General Assembly for a
four-year term. The members of the Board of Governors are sued in their official
capacity.
29.

Thomas W. Ross is the President of the University of North Carolina.

The President is the chief administrative and executive officer of the University of
North Carolina. The President has complete authority to manage the affairs and
execute the policies of the University of North Carolina and its constituent
institutions, subject to the direction and control of the Board of Governors and the
provisions of The Code of the Board of Governors of The University of North
Carolina. He is sued in his official capacity.
30.

UNC-Chapel Hill is a public research university located in Chapel Hill,

North Carolina. UNC-Chapel Hill is a constituent institution of the University of
North Carolina system.
31.

Carol L. Folt is the Chancellor of UNC-Chapel Hill. The Chancellor

exercises complete executive authority over UNC-Chapel Hill, subject to the direction
of the President. The Chancellor is responsible for carrying out policies of the Board
of Governors and of the Board of Trustees of UNC-Chapel Hill. She is sued in her
official capacity.

12

32.

The UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees is charged with promoting the

sound development of its institution within the functions prescribed for it and serving
as advisor to the Board of Governors and to the Chancellor of the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Board of Trustees also has other powers and duties that
are defined and delegated by the Board of Governors.
33.

W. Lowry Caudill, Alston Gardner, Sallie Shuping-Russell, Jefferson

W. Brown, Phillip L. Clay, Haywood D. Cochrane, Donal Williams Curtis, Charles G.
Duckett, Peter T. Grauer, Kelly Matthews Hopkins, Steven Lerner, Dwight D. Stone,
and Andrew Henry Powell are members of the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees.
They are sued in their official capacity.
34.

James W. Dean Jr. is the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost at

UNC-Chapel Hill. The Provost leads UNC-Chapel Hill in its academic planning and
in the setting of academic values, policies, and practices. He is responsible for
providing guidance to the dean of each school, is the Chair of the Deans’ Council, and
is accountable for regularly evaluating the deans, vice provosts, and selected vice
chancellors, as well as candidates for those positions. He is sued in his official
capacity.
35.

Stephen M. Farmer is the Vice Provost for Enrollment and

Undergraduate Admissions at UNC-Chapel Hill.

The Vice Provost directs the

selection and recruitment of the undergraduate student body at UNC-Chapel Hill. He
is sued in his official capacity.

13

IV.

UNC-CHAPEL HILL’S UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS POLICIES.
A.

UNC-Chapel Hill’s Admissions Process
1.

36.

The Application

During an admissions cycle, the UNC-Chapel Hill Admissions

Committee reviews each applicant’s admissions materials. Those materials include:
(1) the Common Application; (2) two essays; (3) official high school transcript; (4)
official standardized test scores; (5) a counselor statement; and (6) one teacher
recommendation.
37.

UNC-Chapel Hill gathers information about the race and ethnicity of its

applicants through numerous ways.
38.

An applicant filling out a Common Application has the option of

disclosing his or her racial identity.
39.

The Common Application asks two questions to identify an applicant’s

race and ethnicity: (1) “Are you Hispanic/Latino?” and (2) “Regardless of your
answer to the prior question, please indicate how you identify yourself. (Check one or
more and describe your background.) American Indian or Alaska Native (including
all Original Peoples of the Americas); Asian (including Indian subcontinent and
Philippines); Black or African American (including Africa and Caribbean); Native
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (Original People); or White (including Middle
Eastern).”
40.

The Common Application requires applicants to identify their parents’

first and last name, the parents’ former last names, and their country of birth.
14

41.

UNC-Chapel Hill accepts transfer students who have been out of high

school at least one year and have completed any college coursework. UNC-Chapel
Hill evaluates applicants for transfer in the same purportedly “holistic” manner it
evaluates all other applicants. UNC-Chapel Hill uses race or ethnicity as a factor in
evaluating transfer applicants.
2.
42.

The Review Process

UNC-Chapel Hill has two application deadlines for admission to the

entering class. The deadline for early admission is in October. The deadline for
regular admission is in January. Early admission applicants are notified of UNCChapel Hill’s decision by the end of January. Applicants for regular admission are
notified of UNC-Chapel Hill’s decision by the end of March. According to UNCChapel Hill, the evaluation process for both sets of candidates for admission is the
same.
43.

Each application is randomly assigned to an admissions officer who

serves as the “first reader.”

That officer reads the application and enters a

recommended decision, which could be to admit, deny, defer, or waitlist the applicant.
That first reader also enters comments in support of his or her recommended decision.
44.

The application is then assigned to a “second reader” who repeats the

process. If the two readers agree and either the applicant is a North Carolina resident
or the applicant is from out of state and the recommendation is to deny the admission,
the decision is entered as a tentative decision. If the two readers do not agree or if the
applicant is from out of state and the recommendation is to admit, the application is
15

reviewed by the Admissions Director, the Admissions Deputy Director, or a
subcommittee of admissions officers, and a tentative decision is then entered.
45.

UNC-Chapel Hill claims to base its admissions decision on a “holistic”

review of each application using more than 40 criteria, which are grouped broadly
into eight categories: (a) academic performance (such as grade point average, rank in
class, and trends in grades); (b) academic program (such as the rigor or courses
taken); (c) standardized testing (including SAT scores); (d) extracurricular activity
(such as work history and demonstrated leadership); (e) special talent (including talent
in athletics and music); (f) essay (including persuasiveness, evidence of selfknowledge, and unique perspective); (g) background (including socio-economic
status, legacy status, race, and national origin); and (h) personal (including curiosity,
integrity, and history of overcoming obstacles).
46.

UNC-Chapel Hill denies using race as a “tie breaker” to fill the final

few places in the entering freshman class. UNC-Chapel Hill instead claims to use
race to pursue the “critical mass” diversity interest.
47.

After tentative decisions have been entered for all candidates, UNC-

Chapel Hill uses a statistical model to predict the number of entering students based
on the applications that have been tentatively marked for admission.
48.

UNC-Chapel Hill then conducts what it terms an “end-of-season”

review, which it refers to as the school group review or the SGR process. During the
SGR process, a report is run showing every applicant from the same high school, with
applicants ordered from highest to lowest grade point average. UNC-Chapel Hill
16

claims to use the SGR process for, among other reasons, “quality control” purposes
and in order to align the predicted enrollment to the number of available spaces for
the entering class.
49.

The Admissions Director is aware of the projected racial composition

of the tentatively admitted students during the SGR process. The reports used during
the SGR process include information regarding each candidate’s race/ethnicity.
Those reports, however, do not include information regarding non-race factors such as
first generation college status or eligibility for a fee waiver.
50.

After the SGR process is completed, applicants receive notification of

acceptance, rejection, or placement on the waiting list. Those applicants who accept a
position on the waiting list will be reconsidered for any spaces that are available after
the enrollment deadline for admitted students.
V.

UNC-CHAPEL HILL IS NOT USING RACE MERELY AS A “PLUS”
FACTOR.
51.

Although UNC-Chapel Hill claims to use an applicant’s race and

ethnicity only as one of many factors within its “holistic” system, statistical and other
evidence establishes that race is a dominant factor in admissions decisions to the
detriment of white and Asian-American applicants.
52.

During the admissions process, UNC-Chapel Hill admissions officers

are aware of the race of every applicant for admissions and that information is
included on the first page of each applicant’s admissions folder. Moreover, race is the
only non-academic factor that is known about an applicant during the SGR process.
17

53.

Table A shows admission rates, by race, for a portion of the overall

range of academic indices generated by UNC in 2006.
Table A
Academic Index for All Admitted Students (2006)
Index Range

Admissions Rate for:
White/Caucasians

Asian Americans

2.4-2.499

Black/African
American
19.3%

3.8%

0.9%

2.5-2.599

30.5%

3.2%

0.9%

2.6-2.699

44.6%

3.7%

2.5%

2.7-2.799

59.2%

12.8%

8.5%

2.8-2.899

65.0%

28.1%

25.6%

2.9-2.999

89.9%

37.2%

26.4%

3.0-3.099

89.3%

44.3%

30.7%

3.1-3.199

100.0%

42.2%

43.1%

3.2-3.299

98.0%

47.5%

55.4%

54.

These statistics show that UNC-Chapel Hill does not use race simply as

a “plus” factor. For African-American applicants with an academic index above 3.1,
race is a dispositive factor essentially guaranteeing admission. For Asian-American
applicants with an academic index below 2.6, on the other hand, race is a dispositive
factor virtually guaranteeing rejection.

18

55.

Table B shows the average high-school GPA and SAT scores by racial

category for students admitted to UNC-Chapel Hill in 2012.
Table B
Average GPA and SAT for All Admitted Students (2012)
Admitted

GPA

SAT

American Indian or
Alaska Native

103

4.38

1300

African American

618

4.32

1229

Asian/Asian American

1018

4.63

1431

Hispanic

415

4.51

1319

6

4.51

1393

White

3616

4.56

1360

Not Reporting

123

4.46

1344

Pacific Islander

56.

These statistics confirm that UNC-Chapel Hill continues to use race as

far more than a “plus” factor in admissions. In particular, the statistics show a
massive academic achievement gap between non-preferred admitted students and
underrepresented minorities. The average high-school GPA and SAT scores for nonpreferred students (Asian American + white) are 4.57 and 1375. The average high
school GPA and SAT scores for underrepresented minorities (African American +
Hispanic + American Indian/Alaska Native) are 4.40 and 1269.
57.

The academic achievement differences are even greater between

specific racial groups. For example, there is over a 200-point SAT gap and a 0.31

19

high-school GPA gap between Asian Americans and African Americans admitted to
UNC-Chapel Hill.
58.

UNC-Chapel Hill’s admissions decisions cannot be attributed to

underrepresented minorities having better non-racial, non-academic qualifications
than other students. See, e.g., Esteben Aucejo, Hanming Fang, and Ken Spenner,
“Does Affirmative Action Lead to Mismatch? A New Test and Evidence,” 2
Quantitative Economics 303 (2011).

That study found no racial advantage for

underrepresented minority applicants in levels of personal achievement.
59.

Studies also have shown that high achieving Asian-American students

are equally, if not more, qualified than other racial groups with regard to nonacademic criteria. At the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), over several
years, undergraduate admissions readers assigned each applicant three types of scores:
“academic achievement” (principally high school grades, AP courses, and
standardized test scores); “life challenges” (mainly socioeconomic background); and
“personal achievement” (such as leadership, musical ability, and community service).
These three scores jointly determined virtually all admissions decisions. See Peter
Arcidiacono, Thomas Espenshade, Stacy Hawkins, and Richard Sander, A
Conversation on the Nature, Effects, and Future of Affirmative Action in Higher
Education Admissions, Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law (Fall 2014).
60.

The data cover over 100,000 undergraduate applicants to UCLA over

three years and show absolutely no correlation between race and “personal
achievement.” Rather, the data show that the only strong predictor of personal20

achievement scores is academic achievement; applicants with high test scores and
grades tended to have personal achievement scores that were about one standard
deviation higher than applicants with low test scores and grades.
61.

There is no evidence that Asian Americans applying to UCLA have

personal achievement credentials that Asian Americans applying to UNC-Chapel Hill
uniformly lack. Rather, all available evidence points in the opposite direction.
62.

Moreover, notwithstanding UNC-Chapel Hill’s public relations

emphasis on non-academic factors in reviewing applications, academic performance
(except when it comes to underrepresented minorities) is the principal criteria for
admission.
63.

Academic analyses of dozens of application processes at colleges and

law schools around the country demonstrate that highly competitive schools, such as
UNC-Chapel Hill, give far more weight to academic achievement and preparation
than to other types of accomplishment and activity (with the exception of racial
preferences). See Richard Sander, Why Strict Scrutiny Requires Transparency: The
Practical Effects of Bakke, Gratz, and Grutter (2011). In general, academic factors
alone explain about 80 percent of admissions decisions at selective schools.
64.

Accordingly, UNC-Chapel Hill is not using race merely as a “plus”

factor in admissions decisions.

UNC-Chapel Hill’s admissions decisions are

attributable to a sizable racial preference for underrepresented minorities.

21

VI.

UNC-CHAPEL
HILL
HAS
AVAILABLE
RACE-NEUTRAL
ALTERNATIVES THAT CAN ACHIEVE STUDENT BODY
DIVERSITY.
65.

UNC-Chapel Hill has a host of race-neutral alternatives that can achieve

student body diversity without the use of racial classifications, including but not
limited to: (a) increased utilization of non-race-based preferences; (b) increased use of
financial aid, scholarships, and recruitment to attract and enroll minority applicants;
and (c) elimination of admissions policies and practices that operate to the
disadvantage of minority applicants. Furthermore, eliminating racial preferences at
UNC-Chapel will alleviate the substantial harm these discriminatory policies cause to
those minority applicants who receive such admissions preference, the North Carolina
community, and society as a whole.
A.

UNC-Chapel Hill Can Achieve Student Body Diversity Without
Using Race As A Factor In Admissions Decisions By Making
Greater Use Of Non-Racial Preferences.

66.

Colleges and universities that have eliminated race-based admissions

have maintained or increased their student body diversity by placing greater emphasis
on socioeconomic factors, which often strongly correlate with an applicant’s race but
are not exclusively reserved for applicants of a particular race or ethnicity. Using
socioeconomic preferences thus increases racial diversity and achieves the broader
diversity that UNC-Chapel Hill claims to seek by opening the door of opportunity for
poor students of all races.
67.

In a recent study of ten leading public universities that ended race-based

preferences, researchers found that seven of these schools maintained or increased
22

their enrollment of African-American and Hispanic students by adopting strategies
that target socioeconomic inequality.

See Halley Potter, Transitioning to Race-

Neutral Admissions: An Overview of Experiences in States Where Affirmative Action
Has Been Banned, The Future of Affirmative Action (2014).
68.

For example, the University of Colorado has devised an admissions

formula that gives a significant preference to students from socioeconomically
disadvantaged backgrounds. This refined formula takes into consideration numerous
socioeconomic factors, including single-parent status, parents’ education level, family
income, native language, the number of dependents in the family, whether the
applicant attended a rural high school, the percentage of students from the applicant’s
high school eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, the school-wide student-toteacher ratio, and the size of the twelfth-grade class.
69.

Under this admissions program, the University of Colorado found not

only that the socioeconomic diversity of its incoming class increased substantially, but
that racial and ethnic diversity increased as well. African-American and Hispanic
acceptance rates to the University of Colorado increased from 56 percent under racebased admissions to 65 percent under class-based admissions.

See Matthew N.

Gaertner, Advancing College Access with Class-Based Affirmative Action, The Future
of Affirmative Action (2014).
70.

Recently, a national simulation was conducted to determine whether the

use of socioeconomic preferences could achieve student body diversity without the
use of racial preferences at elite universities. See Anthony P. Carnevale, Stephen J.
23

Rose, Jeff Strohl, Achieving Racial and Economic Diversity with Race-Blind
Admissions Policy, The Future of Affirmative Action (2014). The study simulated
various admissions models at the top-rated 193 colleges and universities “because the
dialogue about affirmative action often implies that it is access to these schools and
the opportunities they provide in business, social and career advancement that truly
matters.”

The study examined, among other things, the effect of substituting

socioeconomic preference for race-based preferences at America’s elite college and
universities using test scores and high-school grades as measures of merit.
71.

The national simulation ultimately found that “it is possible to achieve

both racial and economic diversity in selective colleges without using race per se as
an admissions criterion” and, importantly, that it could be achieved consistent with the
understanding “that affirmative action models ought to promote racial diversity as an
educational benefit instead of promoting racial diversity for its own sake.”
72.

Another study found that increased focus on parental education and

wealth—as opposed to income—as a measure of socioeconomic status also can help
achieve student body diversity without the use of racial preferences. See Dalton
Conley, The Why, What, and How of Class-Based Admissions Policy, The Future of
Affirmative Action (2014).

The study found that “the most important factor in

predicting individual academic success is the education of a parent” and the
“economic factor” that mattered most was “parental net worth (that is, wealth) and not
income.” Indeed, “wealth conceptually captures the legacy of historical inequalities
of opportunity better than aspects of class that cannot be literally transferred directly
24

from one generation to the next by signing a check (or a deed or a will).” While
African Americans make on the order of 60 to 70 percent of what whites make in
income, the median African American family wealth is just 10 percent of white family
wealth.
73.

Affording a community-based preference is another means of achieving

student body diversity by admitting more socioeconomically disadvantaged students.
See Sheryll Cashin, Place not Race: A New Vision of Opportunity in America (2014).
African Americans and Hispanics are much more likely to live in neighborhoods with
concentrated poverty than whites. See John R. Logan, Separate and Unequal: The
Neighborhood Gap for Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in Metropolitan America
(2011), Table 2.
74.

Universities have used this community-based homogeneity to promote

racial and ethnic diversity through race-neutral means.

For example, Texas,

California, and Florida have adopted “percent plans” that guarantee admission to state
universities for top graduates (based on grades) from each high school in the state.
These

percentage

plans

have

been

successful

in

promoting

community,

socioeconomic, and racial diversity.
75.

In addition to statewide percentage plans, a university can achieve

student body diversity by granting a preference within their existing admissions
framework utilizing other community-based metrics, such as an applicant’s zip code.
See Danielle Allen, Talent is Everywhere: Using Zip Codes and Merit to Enhance
Diversity, The Future of Affirmative Action (2014).
25

76.

Studies show that students admitted based on socioeconomic as opposed

to racial criteria regularly outperform all other admitted students. These students drop
out at lower rates, graduate in shorter time periods, and receive better grades.
77.

UNC-Chapel Hill has conducted studies proving that it can use race-

neutral alternatives to achieve student body diversity without sacrificing its academic
standards.
78.

In 2012, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Fisher v.

University of Texas at Austin, the UNC-Chapel Hill Admissions Office conducted a
study to analyze the projected composition of its incoming class if it adopted an
admissions plan similar to the one used by the University of Texas at Austin. Under
Texas law, all students in the top ten percent of their class at high schools in Texas
that comply with certain standards are granted automatic admission to any public state
college, including the University of Texas at Austin.
79.

UNC-Chapel Hill submitted the results of its study to the U.S.

Department of Education as part of the agency’s investigation into UNC-Chapel
Hill’s admissions practices and to the U.S. Supreme Court through its amicus brief in
the Fisher case.
80.

According to UNC-Chapel Hill, eliminating racial preferences and

replacing them with a top-ten-percent plan similar to the University of Texas at
Austin’s would increase the percentage of nonwhite and underrepresented students
enrolling at UNC-Chapel Hill from 15 percent to 16 percent.

26

81.

Adopting this plan also likely would increase the average high-school

GPA of UNC-Chapel Hill’s admitted students because the proportion of the admitted
pool coming from the top ten percent of high school classes would by definition
increase.
82.

In other words, UNC-Chapel Hill determined that it could adopt a race-

neutral admissions policy that increases both the racial diversity of the student body
and the likely average GPA of the entering freshman class.
83.

Nevertheless, UNC-Chapel Hill informed the Department of Education

and the Supreme Court that it would not implement this admissions plan because it
would yield “a significantly less satisfactory admissions system for UNC in most
respects.”
84.

UNC-Chapel Hill gave three reasons for why the plan was

unacceptable: (a) the average entering SATs of the incoming class would decline by
56 points, from 1317 to 1262; (b) predicted first-year GPA averages would drop by
0.10 points, from 3.26 to 3.16; and (c) applicants whose grades were not in the top ten
percent of their class would see their chances of admission reduced from 31 percent
(under the present system) to 10 percent (under a top-ten-percent plan).
85.

None of these pretextual reasons UNC-Chapel Hill gave for retaining

racial preferences instead of adopting this workable, race-neutral alternative can
survive judicial review under strict scrutiny.

27

86.

First, UNC-Chapel Hill is well aware that an average decline of 56 SAT

points (from the 91st percentile to the 86th percentile) will have little to no effect on
the academic quality of the student body.
87.

In its response to the Department of Education, UNC-Chapel Hill

sought to explain why admitted African Americans had a far lower average SAT
score than admitted Asian-American students (1229 and 1431, respectively) by
arguing that the 202-point gap was minimal and, in any event, irrelevant.
88.

To begin, UNC-Chapel Hill claimed that any SAT gap less than 120

points was meaningless because this gap was within the test’s margin of error. UNCChapel Hill claimed that the “standard errors of difference (‘SED’) for the SAT is
roughly 40 points on each section; this means that, for two scores on either section to
represent what the College Board describes as ‘real’ differences in the attributes
measure by that section, the two scores must be different by at least 60 points, or 1.5
times the SED.”
89.

Thus, UNC-Chapel Hill explained, “a student who scores 620 on

Critical Reading and 600 on Math [1220 total] displays no ‘real’ or measured
difference from a student who scores 670 and 650, respectively [1320 total].”
90.

While UNC-Chapel Hill acknowledged that “the differences in mean

SAT scores between underrepresented students and Asian or white students are
statistically significant” (as the gap was greater than 120 points), UNC-Chapel Hill
contended that the SAT was a meaningless predictor of future success.

28

91.

UNC-Chapel Hill argued that “[w]hatever the ‘real’ difference in SAT

scores between underrepresented and other students, the significance of that
difference is subject to question.

If the SAT is a relatively crude predictor of

academic performance in general, it is even less reliable at predicting the performance
of underrepresented students in particular, even when the impact of socioeconomic
status is controlled for.”
92.

As an example, UNC-Chapel Hill argued that its “Covenant Scholars,”

which are students who may receive significant financial aid if their parents’ adjusted
gross income does not exceed 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines (e.g., $37,060
for a family of three), fully succeed at UNC despite having SAT scores 81 points
lower than average.
93.

According to UNC-Chapel Hill, Covenant Scholars “earned SAT scores

that averaged 81 points below the class average of 1293,” but that “if past experience
holds, more than 97 percent of these students will return for the second year at
Carolina—a rate equal to that of their classmates with higher incomes and SAT
scores.”
94.

A 56-point decline in average SAT scores under a top-ten percent plan

is especially modest in light of UNC-Chapel Hill’s belief that socioeconomically
disadvantaged students may have more potential than economically privileged
students with similar test scores.

Because American high schools tend to be

economically as well as racially stratified, a top-ten-percent plan in North Carolina is

29

likely to be accompanied by an increase in socioeconomic diversity at UNC-Chapel
Hill.
95.

Economic diversity increased, for example, after the adoption of UT

Austin’s top 10 percent plan. In 2013, 21 percent of incoming students admitted
through the Texas top 10 percent plan were from families making less than $40,000
compared with 6 percent of those admitted under discretionary admissions.

See

William Powers, The University of Texas at Austin: Report to the Governor, the
Lieutenant Governor, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the
Implementation of SB 175, at 30 (2013).
96.

In discussions with the Department of Education, UNC-Chapel Hill

emphasized that “assessment of disadvantage must … inform the University’s
interpretation of the candidate’s SAT scores and other academic indicators.” Given
“the strong correlation between SAT scores and socioeconomic status,” UNC-Chapel
Hill contended that, “schools, including [UNC-Chapel Hill], have chosen to view
SAT scores in light of the student’s socioeconomic circumstances, as a way of
tempering the test’s tendency to measure privilege rather than preparedness.”
97.

More broadly, UNC-Chapel Hill stressed that “average [SAT] scores

across groups, as well as the scores of individual students, should be interpreted with
great caution, and always in conjunction with other indicators that speak to students’
academic preparation.” To that end, UNC-Chapel Hill repeatedly emphasized that “in
evaluating candidates for admission, we do not seek to maximize the average SAT
score.”
30

98.

Given UNC-Chapel Hill’s position that a 100-point SAT gap was within

the test’s margin of error and thus statistically insignificant, and that a 200-point gap
should be “interpreted with great caution” since the SAT is only a “crude predictor of
academic success,” it is disingenuous in the extreme for UNC-Chapel Hill to claim
that it must use race in its admissions in order to prevent a 56-point decline in its
average SAT score that would be caused through race-neutral admissions.
99.

Second, UNC-Chapel Hill’s professed fear of a 0.10 drop in predicted

first-year GPA is pretext for continued racial discrimination. Here too, UNC-Chapel
Hill’s submission to the Department of Education belies its newfound concern on
predicted first-year GPA.
100.

Before the Department of Education, UNC-Chapel Hill stressed that “in

evaluating candidates for admission, we do not seek to maximize ... the average
eventual GPA of the entering class.”
101.

In addition, in attempting to explain the difference in average high-

school GPAs for admitted students (ranging from 4.31 for American Indians to 4.65
for whites) UNC-Chapel Hill argued that such differences were of “questionable
statistical significance.” In particular, UNC-Chapel Hill argued that the 0.11 GPA
difference

between

whites/Asians

and

African

Americans/Hispanics/Native

Americans was insignificant because a 0.11 GPA differential “is the equivalent of one
letter-grade difference in each of two classes over the course of a four-year high
school career.”

31

102.

Moreover, UNC-Chapel Hill is aware that students coming from the top

ten percent of their class do better than the rest of the student body. According to
UNC-Chapel Hill, “by far the best predictor of eventual academic performance in
college[] is high-school grade-point average (GPA).”
103.

For example, of the 391 first year students who made the Dean’s List in

the Spring of 2012, 79 percent (309 students) were in the top 10 percent of their high
school classes. In addition, among the graduating seniors inducted into Phi Beta
Kappa in the Fall of 2010, more than 85 percent were in the top 10 percent of their
high school graduating classes.
104.

Third, UNC-Chapel Hill’s concern with the decreased admissions

chances of applicants with lower grades is simply the byproduct of an admissions
process that places more emphasis on high-school GPA—which UNC claims is “by
far the best predictor of eventual academic performance in college”—and less
emphasis on SAT scores—which UNC dubs “one factor among many” and a “crude
predictor of academic performance.” UNC-Chapel Hill does not have a compelling
government interest in preferring applicants who do not finish in the top ten percent of
their class for its own sake.
105.

In addition to the top-ten-percent plan, UNC-Chapel Hill has other

options available for maintaining or increasing diversity through race-neutral means,
including prioritizing additional socioeconomic factors in the admissions process.

32

106.

According to UNC-Chapel Hill’s submission to the Department of

Education, its “applicant pool shows that a disproportionate share of disadvantaged
applicants are also underrepresented applicants.”
107.

UNC-Chapel Hill further noted: “Within the University’s applicant

pool, underrepresented students are much more likely than Asian and white students
to come from disadvantaged households and schools.”
108.

For Fall 2006, underrepresented applicants were “2.3 times more likely

than Asian and white applicants to live in households where neither parent held a
college degree (32.3 percent vs. 13.8 percent); 12.2 times more likely to have been
poor enough to qualify for a waiver of their admissions application fee (22.1 percent
vs. 1.8 percent); 1.9 times more likely to live in a single-parent household (33.6
percent vs. 17.3 percent); and 5.0 times more likely to attend a high school where at
least half of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch (18.1 percent vs. 3.6
percent).”
109.

UNC-Chapel Hill further noted: “Overall, underrepresented applicants

were 2.0 times more likely than their Asian and white counterparts to come from
backgrounds with at least one of these characteristics (52.6 percent vs. 26.4 percent).
The ratio was even higher for students with any two of these characteristics (4.2 times
as likely, or 20.7 percent vs. 4.2 percent); for students with three or more
characteristics, the ratio was higher still (12.2 times more likely, or 6.5 percent vs. 0.5
percent).”

33

110.

In addition, UNC-Chapel Hill stated that its “Covenant Scholars” are

“2.5 times more likely to be underrepresented than the class as a whole (47 percent vs.
19 percent) and are the poorest of the University’s new students.”
111.

Given this strong correlation between socioeconomic status and race in

UNC-Chapel Hill’s applicant pool, UNC-Chapel Hill could easily maintain or
increase its racial diversity by emphasizing socioeconomic indicators instead of race.
112.

Like the percentage plan described above, an admissions plan

emphasizing additional socioeconomic factors would have no impact on academic
quality of the student body.
113.

For example, UNC-Chapel Hill prides itself on the academic success of

its Covenant Scholars, who by definition come from socioeconomically
disadvantaged backgrounds: “The fact that Covenant Scholars are from lower-income
backgrounds doesn’t get in the way of their academic success. Covenant Scholars do
well at Carolina.”
114.

According to UNC-Chapel Hill, more than 97 percent of Covenant

Scholars “will return for the second year at Carolina—a rate equal to that of their
classmates with higher incomes and SAT scores.” In addition, “Covenant Scholars
are still enrolled in Year 4 at almost the same rate as all other students at the
University,” and “the average grade point average for Scholars at graduation is almost
the same as for all students.”
115.

When UNC-Chapel Hill makes its admissions decisions, as reflected by

the lack of socioeconomic diversity in the student body as compared to racial
34

diversity, it gives almost no weight to an applicant’s socioeconomic status, whether
measured by income or by wealth, and/or community of origin.
116.

Measured in terms of those students receiving federal Pell Grants, which

are awarded to students coming from low-income families, UNC-Chapel Hill lags
behind other schools. The percentage of students at UNC-Chapel Hill who receive
Pell Grants in 2013 was only 20 percent. In comparison, universities that employ
race-neutral admissions had far greater numbers of Pell Grant recipients, including the
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) (35 percent), the University of
California, Berkeley (33 percent), and the University of Florida (30 percent). 2014
National Universities Rankings – Social Mobility, Washington Monthly (2014).
Nationally, 36 percent of college students receive Pell Grants. See College Board,
Trends in Student Aid 2013. In a 2010 study of flagship universities, the Education
Trust placed UNC-Chapel Hill in the bottom quartile for low-income student access.
See Opportunity Adrift: Our Flagship Universities are Straying from Their Public
Mission (2010), Figure 17.
117.

By contrast, UNC-Chapel Hill places far greater weight on an

applicant’s race—regardless of his or her socioeconomic status or the community of
origin.
118.

By increasing the weight given to an applicant’s socioeconomic status

and/or community of origin, UNC-Chapel Hill can achieve student body diversity
without resorting to the disfavored tool of racial preferences.

35

B.

UNC-Chapel Hill Can Achieve Student Body Diversity Without
Using Race As A Factor In Admissions Decisions By Making
Greater Use Of Financial Aid And Scholarships To Attract
Minority Candidates.

119.

Relying on socioeconomic instead of racial preferences at the

admissions stage is the first step. But UNC-Chapel Hill needs to ensure that those
underprivileged minorities that benefit from socioeconomic preferences are in a
position to accept the offer of admission and enroll at UNC-Chapel Hill. To that end,
UNC-Chapel Hill can achieve student body diversity by increasing its use of financial
aid and scholarships.
120.

Colleges and universities that have eliminated racial preferences have

maintained or increased student body diversity by offering more financial aid to
socioeconomically disadvantaged students. For example, the University of California
system, which does not use race-based preferences, covers tuition for students from
families with incomes below $80,000. The University of California devotes one-third
of tuition revenue to financial aid.
121.

Yet in August 2014, the UNC Board of Governors instituted a cap that

prevents UNC from devoting more than 15 percent of tuition revenue to financial aid.
122.

Moreover, UNC-Chapel Hill could do much more to support

socioeconomically disadvantaged students given its significant economic resources.
UNC’s $2.38 billion endowment is the one of the largest in the nation; it exceeds the
gross domestic product of Greenland and 36 other countries.

36

123.

Yet the total cost of full-time attendance for undergraduates is estimated

to be $24,120 for North Carolina residents and $50,938 for out-of-state residents.
124.

UNC-Chapel Hill has the economic resources to increase its financial

aid far beyond the 15 percent threshold.

Doing so would make it possible for

underprivileged minorities, especially those in the lower middle class, and those who
may have slightly higher income levels but less wealth, admitted to UNC-Chapel Hill
through the increased use of socioeconomic preferences (as opposed to the affluent
minorities currently being admitted due to racial preferences) to be in a position to
accept an offer of admission and enroll at UNC-Chapel Hill.
C.

UNC-Chapel Hill Can Achieve Student Body Diversity Without
Using Race As A Factor In Admissions Decisions Through
Increased Recruitment And Other Steps Designed To Encourage
More Qualified Minority Students To Apply For Admission.

125.

UNC-Chapel Hill can achieve student body diversity by bringing more

highly qualified, socioeconomically disadvantaged minorities into its applicant pool.
Across the country, there are tens of thousands of socioeconomically disadvantaged,
high-achieving minorities who fail to apply to selective schools, including UNCChapel Hill, at which they would likely be admitted and at which they would enroll if
offered sufficient financial aid.
126.

One study found that between 25,000 and 35,000 socioeconomically

disadvantaged high school seniors obtain an SAT or ACT in the 90th percentile or
higher and have a GPA of A- or better. Nearly 6 percent of this group is African
American and nearly 8 percent is Hispanic. A great many of these socioeconomically
37

disadvantaged students “undermatch” by applying to and enrolling at colleges and
universities less selective than the ones to which they could have been admitted. See
Caroline Hoxby, Christopher Avery, The Missing “One-Offs”: The Hidden Supply of
High-Achieving, Low-Income Students, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity
(Spring 2013).
127.

Universities with race-neutral admissions have increased their student

body diversity by improving recruitment of these socioeconomically disadvantaged,
high-achieving minority students. For example, after race-based admissions were
eliminated in Texas, the University of Texas at Austin increased its student body
diversity by implementing numerous programs designed to recruit students from
underrepresented regions and high schools, including “Longhorn Game Weekends,”
which focus on specific geographic regions, and “Longhorn for a Day,” which reaches
out to students in underrepresented high schools.
128.

Furthermore, a study found that simply mailing a well-designed,

targeted brochure to high-achieving, socioeconomically disadvantaged students could
be instrumental in causing them to apply to selective colleges and universities. See
Sheryll Cashin, Place not Race: A New Vision of Opportunity in America 49 (2014).
129.

Universities also have achieved student body diversity by aggressively

recruiting high-achieving community college students, who are more likely to be
African American or Hispanic. For example, in 1997, after California banned racial
preferences, the University of California substantially increased its recruitment and
enrollment of community college students.
38

As a result of the University of

California’s efforts, by 2012, about 29 percent of new students enrolling in the
University of California system were transfers from community colleges.

See

Preparing California for Its Future: Enhancing Community College Student Transfer
to the University of California (2014).
130.

UNC-Chapel Hill can do far more to recruit high-achieving,

socioeconomically disadvantaged minority students or high-achieving community
college students. Carolina’s Student Transfer Excellence Program (C-STEP) has
enrolled a mere 450 students since 2006, which represents fewer than 2 percent of
new students enrolled during that time period.
131.

This failure to recruit socioeconomically disadvantaged students is

reflected in UNC-Chapel Hill’s applicant pool. Although there are more than 10,000
high schools in the country that have students with the credentials to be admitted to
UNC-Chapel Hill, only a small fraction of these schools have students who ultimately
apply to UNC-Chapel Hill.
132.

UNC-Chapel Hill could achieve its student body diversity without the

use of racial preferences by improving its recruitment of socioeconomically
disadvantaged, high-achieving minorities and community college students.
D.

UNC-Chapel Hill Can Achieve Student Body Diversity Without
Using Race As A Factor In Admissions Decisions Through
Elimination Of Admissions Policies And Practices That Harm
Minority Applicants.

133.

UNC-Chapel Hill employs admissions practices and policies that make

it more difficult for socioeconomically disadvantaged minorities to gain admission.
39

Eliminating these practices and policies would allow UNC-Chapel Hill to achieve
student body diversity without using racial preferences.
134.

UNC-Chapel Hill purports to not grant admissions preferences to in-

state legacies, yet the Admissions Director acknowledges that he is aware of the
legacy status of all applicants (both in-state and out-of-state).
135.

In addition, UNC-Chapel Hill conceded to the Department of Education

that “for out-of-state students, status as an alumni child can ... be very important” in
the admissions process.
136.

Eighteen percent of first year students at UNC-Chapel Hill are the

children of alumni.
137.

At most universities throughout the country, including UNC-Chapel

Hill, children of alums are less likely to be socioeconomically disadvantaged or racial
minorities than the rest of the student body. Thus, colleges and universities, like
UNC-Chapel Hill, that grant admissions preferences to legacies give a competitive
advantage to mainly white, wealthy applicants, while undermining the chances for
admission of socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority applicants. See John
Brittain and Eric L. Bloom, Admitting the Truth: The Effect of Affirmative Action,
Legacy Preferences, and the Meritocratic Ideal on Students of Color in College
Admissions, Affirmative Action for the Rich (2010).
138.

As a consequence, eliminating legacy preferences in conjunction with

other race-neutral admissions policies can achieve student body diversity. Several
universities, including Texas A&M University, the University of Georgia, and the
40

University of California, have increased their student body diversity by ending their
practice of favoring legacies in the admissions process in conjunction with the
elimination of racial preferences.
139.

Furthermore, one study found that eliminating legacy preferences in

combination with other race-neutral admissions criteria could more than double
African-American and Hispanic enrollment and more than triple the enrollment of
socioeconomically disadvantaged students. See Anthony P. Carnevale, Stephen J.
Rose, Jeff Strohl, Achieving Racial and Economic Diversity with Race-Blind
Admissions Policy, The Future of Affirmative Action (2014).
140.

Eliminating legacy preferences is a workable race-neutral strategy.

Research finds that the existence of legacy preferences does not increase alumni
donations to an institution. See Chad Coffman, Tara O’Neil, and Brian Starr, An
Empirical Analysis of Legacy Preferences on Alumni Giving at Top Universities,
Affirmative Action for the Rich (2010).
141.

UNC-Chapel Hill can achieve student body diversity without using

racial preferences by eliminating legacy admissions preferences in conjunction with
other race-neutral measures.
142.

UNC-Chapel Hill also admits applicants through an early admission

program. Early admissions is a practice in which schools allow students to submit
their application in the early Fall if they apply to only one school or promise to attend
the school if admitted.

41

143.

Early admission programs, like UNC-Chapel Hill’s program, usually

benefit wealthier and better-informed students because these students have the
resources to submit their application early and do not need to hold out for the prospect
of financial aid. See Justin Pope, Harvard Drops Early Admissions, Saying They
Favor Wealthier Students Over Minorities, Poor, Associated Press (Sept. 12, 2006).
144.

By contrast, socioeconomically disadvantaged students and minorities

face a disadvantage under early admission programs because they often receive
inadequate information and counseling and lack the economic resources to commit to
a school so early in the process.
145.

UNC-Chapel Hill can achieve student body diversity without using

racial preferences by eliminating its early admissions program in conjunction with
other race-neutral measures.
E.

Achieving Student Body Diversity Through Race-Neutral Means
Eliminates The Heavy Cost Imposed By The Use Of Racial
Preferences.

146.

Any assessment of the feasibility of race-neutral alternatives must also

take into account the heavy costs of not employing them. The costs of continuing to
use racial preferences when workable race-neutral alternatives exist are high from
both a legal and a practical perspective.
147.

As a legal matter, “[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of

their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people, and therefore are
contrary to our traditions and hence constitutionally suspect.” Fisher v. University of
Texas at Austin, 133 S. Ct. 2411, 2418 (2013) (citations and quotations omitted). As a
42

result, the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore Title VI, “forbids the use even of
narrowly drawn racial classifications except as a last resort.” Croson, 488 U.S. at 519
(Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
148.

UNC-Chapel Hill’s practice of labeling all applicants according to broad

racial categories illustrates why such classifications are pernicious and always create
the “danger that a racial classification is merely the product of unthinking stereotypes
or a form of racial politics.” Croson, 488 U.S. at 493.
149.

These racial categories lump together students in categories such as

“African American” or “Hispanic” or “Asian American,” even though they come
from vastly different cultures, experiences, and backgrounds.
150.

For example, UNC-Chapel Hill’s category of “Asian Americans”

comprises roughly 60 percent of the world’s population, including individuals of
Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, and Indian descent.
151.

While many Asian Americans have been in the United States for

generations, others are recent immigrants or children of immigrants. Some Asian
Americans came to the United States to escape communism, authoritarianism, war,
and poverty, while others simply sought out greater opportunities.

Some Asian

Americans come from highly educated families, but many others do not.
152.

Asian Americans also have a wide range of religious beliefs, including

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and many others. Some come
from cultures that aggressively promote education, while many others come from
cultures that take a less demanding approach.
43

153.

Thus, for example, Indian-American students are different from

Japanese-American students; Vietnamese-American students are different from
Chinese-American students; and students from Mainland China, Hong Kong, and
Taiwan all have unique perspectives and cultural experiences.
154.

Given this diversity, it is lamentable for UNC-Chapel Hill to lump all

Asian Americans together in the admissions process. Yet this categorization is the
inevitable byproduct of using group-based racial classifications instead of employing
race-neutral alternatives that are able to account for the vast differences among
applicants.
155.

Racial classifications also have a stigmatizing effect on the supposed

beneficiaries of these policies. Irrespective of whether an individual AfricanAmerican or Hispanic applicant is admitted to UNC-Chapel Hill because of a racial
preference, so long as racial preferences exist, it will often be assumed that race is the
reason for the applicant’s admission to the school. This stigma can have a devastating
effect on the psyche of impressionable students.
156.

For example, according to one African American who attended an elite

liberal arts college, upon arriving at school, “I was immediately stereotyped and put
into a box because I was African-American. And that made it harder to perform…..
There was a general feeling that all blacks on campus were there either because they
were athletes or they came through a minority-recruitment program and might not
really belong there.” Shaken by the experience, the student dropped out after his
freshman year.
44

157.

UNC-Chapel Hill can eliminate the harmful effects these unfair

stereotypes cause by using race-neutral alternatives.
158.

Finally, the “mismatch effect” of racial preferences far too frequently

put the supposed beneficiaries of race-based admissions policies in a position where
they cannot succeed academically in order to fulfill the university’s social-engineering
vision.
159.

This “mismatch” effect happens when a school employs such a large

admissions preference that the student is academically damaged in a variety of ways
by being placed in an academic environment where most of the student’s peers have
substantially stronger levels of academic preparation.
160.

For example, a student who would flourish at a less elite school instead

finds himself or herself at UNC-Chapel Hill, where the professors are not teaching at
a pace designed for him or her. Instead, they are teaching to the “middle” of the class,
introducing terms and concepts at a speed that is unnerving even to the best-prepared
student.
161.

The student who is underprepared relative to others in that class falls

behind from the start and becomes increasingly lost as the professor and classmates
race ahead. The student’s grades on his or her first exams or papers put him or her at
the bottom of the class. Worse, the experience may well induce panic and self-doubt,
making learning even more difficult, thus creating a vicious cycle that only
exacerbates the problem.

45

162.

The “mismatch effect” has been documented in dozens of studies. See,

e.g., Peter Arcidiacono, Esteban M. Aucejo, and Ken Spenner, What Happens After
Enrollment? An Analysis of the Time Path of Racial Differences in GPA and Major
Choice (2011); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Encouraging Minority Students to
Pursue Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Careers, Briefing Report
(October 2010); Richard Sander and Roger Bolus, Do Credential Gaps in College
Reduce the Number of Minority Science Graduates? (2009); Richard Sander, A
Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools, 57 Stan. L. Rev.
367 (2004); Stephen Cole and Elinor Barber, Increasing Faculty Diversity (2003);
Rogers Elliott, A. Christopher Strenta, Russell Adair, Michael Matier and Jannah
Scott, The Role of Ethnicity in Choosing and Leaving Science in Highly Selective
Institutions, 37 Research in Higher Education 681 (1996).
163.

As this research demonstrates, African-American college freshmen are

more likely to aspire to science or engineering careers than are white freshmen, but
mismatch causes African Americans to abandon these fields at twice the rate of
whites.
164.

As a consequence, African Americans who start college interested in

pursuing a doctorate and an academic career are twice as likely to be derailed from
this path if they attend a school where they are mismatched.
165.

Furthermore, about half of African-American college students rank in

the bottom 20 percent of their classes.

46

166.

Mismatch also creates social problems on campus.

The academic

research shows that interracial friendships are more likely to form among students
with relatively similar levels of academic preparation; thus, African Americans and
Hispanics are more socially integrated on campuses where they are less academically
mismatched.
167.

UNC-Chapel Hill has experienced and continues to experience the

“mismatch effect.” At least two serious forms of mismatch have been specifically
documented in studies that included students from UNC-Chapel Hill: “academic
mismatch” and “science mismatch.”
168.

In 2003, Harvard University Press published Increasing Faculty

Diversity, a major study by sociologists Stephen Cole and Elinor Barber that sought to
understand why there were so few underrepresented minorities—particularly African
Americans—in the academic pipeline leading to university faculty positions. In an
effort sponsored by the Council of Ivy League Presidents, Cole and Barber conducted
in-depth surveys of thousands of underrepresented minority students at a wide range
of institutions, including at UNC-Chapel Hill.
169.

They focused on students who started college with a significant interest

in pursuing an academic career. They found, however, that when students received a
large preference to attend a more elite school, they tended to get lower grades than
they would have had they attended a school where their credentials were close to (or
even above) the median of their classmates. Students receiving large preferences

47

were more likely to get low grades, and poor performance sharply eroded their
interest in pursuing an academic career.
170.

The study’s results demonstrate that colleges like UNC-Chapel Hill play

a double role: the strongest minority students attending UNC-Chapel Hill (those who
received no preference or a minimal preference) outperformed their Ivy League peers
and quite often remained on the academic track; those who received large preferences
into UNC-Chapel Hill were likely to suffer from academic mismatch. No subsequent
research has rebutted Cole and Barber’s findings.
171.

In 2004, two psychologists at the University of Virginia published a

peer-reviewed study of minority attrition in the sciences. See Frederick L. Smyth and
John J. McArdle, Ethnic and Gender Differences in Science Graduation at Selective
Colleges With Implications For Admission Policy and College Choice, Research In
Higher Education, Vol. 45, No. 4 (June 2003). These scholars gained permission to
use the College and Beyond dataset assembled by the Mellon Foundation. This data
set included comprehensive data from Ivy League colleges, selective liberal arts
colleges, historically black colleges, and several flagship state university, including
UNC-Chapel Hill.
172.

Smyth and McArdle examined what factors affected the success of

students in science, technology, engineering, and math (“STEM”) fields of study.
They found that a critical factor was a student’s academic preparation relative to her
peers. Moreover, they found that this effect was essentially identical for white,
African American, and Hispanic students. In all cases, students who attended a
48

school where their level of academic preparation was substantially lower than those of
their peers were far more likely to drop out of STEM fields as compared to identical
students who attended schools where their relative peer position was higher. The
effect was so large that Smyth and McArdle advised high school counselors to take
potential mismatch into account in helping students understand the pros and cons of
attending “reach” schools.
173.

UNC-Chapel Hill can eliminate this harmful mismatch and allow

students to excel at schools for which they are most prepared by eliminating the use of
racial preferences and employing race-neutral alternatives that bring high-performing,
socioeconomically disadvantaged minorities into the applicant pool.
VII.

GOVERNING LAW
174.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in relevant part, that no person

shall be denied “the equal protection of the laws.”
175.

Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides: “All

persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every
State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence,
and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons
and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment,
pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”
176.

Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides: “Every

person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of
any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected,
49

any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress ….”
177.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides: “No person in the

United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
178.

Under Title VI, “the term ‘program or activity’ and the term ‘program’

mean all of the operations … of a college, university, or other postsecondary
institution, or a public system of higher education … any part of which is extended
Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-4a.
179.

An institution that accepts federal funds violates Title VI when it

engages in racial or ethnic discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Gratz v. Bollinger,
539 U.S. 244, 257 n.23 (2003) (“We have explained that discrimination that violates
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment committed by an
institution that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI.”) (citing
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 281 (2001)).
180.

The “central mandate” of equal protection is “racial neutrality” by the

government or institution subject to the Fourteenth Amendment. Miller v. Johnson,
515 U.S. 900, 904 (1995). “Whenever the government treats any person unequally
50

because of his or her race, that person has suffered an injury that falls squarely within
the language and spirit of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 229-30 (2000).
181.

“Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by

their very nature odious to a free people, and therefore are contrary to our traditions
and hence constitutionally suspect.”

Fisher, 133 S. Ct. at 2419 (citations and

quotations omitted). Thus, “any official action that treats a person differently on
account of race or ethnic origin is inherently suspect.” Id. (citation and quotations
omitted). In other words, “because racial classifications so seldom provide a relevant
basis for disparate treatment, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial
classifications be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny.” Id. (citations and quotations
omitted).
182.

“[A]ll racial classifications … must be analyzed by a reviewing court

under strict scrutiny.” Adarand, 515 U.S. at 227. “Strict scrutiny is a searching
examination, and it is the government that bears the burden to prove that the reasons
for any racial classification are clearly identified and unquestionably legitimate.”
Fisher, 133 S. Ct. at 2419 (citations and quotations omitted). Strict scrutiny thus
requires a “detailed judicial inquiry to ensure that the personal right to equal
protection of the laws has not been infringed.” Adarand, 515 U.S. at 227.
183.

In particular, strict scrutiny requires a “detailed examination, both as to

ends and to means.” Adarand, 515 U.S. at 236. When governmental institutions
implement policies and practices that “touch upon an individual’s race or ethnic
51

background, he is entitled to a judicial determination that the burden he is asked to
bear on that basis is precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.”
Fisher, 133 S. Ct. at 2417 (citations and quotations omitted).
184.

Racial “classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly

tailored to further compelling governmental interests.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 326.
185.

“Strict scrutiny requires the university to demonstrate with clarity that

its purpose or interest is both constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its
use of the classification is necessary to accomplish that purpose.” Fisher, 133 S. Ct.
at 2418.
186.

To meet strict scrutiny, the end must be “compelling”—not merely

legitimate or important. To be narrowly tailored, “the means chosen” must “fit” the
unmet compelling interest “so closely that there is little or no possibility that the
motive for the classification was illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype.” Croson,
488 U.S. at 493 (citations and quotations omitted).

In other words, “racial

classifications, however, compelling their goals, are potentially so dangerous that they
may be employed no more broadly than the interest demands.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at
342.
187.

“To survive strict scrutiny,” moreover, the institution “must do more

than assert a compelling state interest—it must demonstrate that its law is necessary to
serve the asserted interest.” Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 199 (1992). The
government must establish the necessity of using race by a “strong basis in evidence”
because “the mere recitation” of a compelling interest is “not an automatic shield
52

which protects against any inquiry” into the justification for race-based action.”
Croson, 488 U.S. at 495, 500. Strict scrutiny “forbids the use even of narrowly drawn
racial classifications except as a last resort.” Id. at 519 (Kennedy, J., concurring in
part and concurring in the judgment).
188.

Racial quotas violate the Fourteenth Amendment. In the educational

setting, then, “universities cannot establish quotas for members of certain racial
groups or put members of those groups on separate admissions tracks. Nor can
universities insulate applicants who belong to certain racial or ethnic groups from the
competition for admission.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 334 (citation omitted).
189.

Moreover, the university’s policy violates the Fourteenth Amendment if

it amounts to “racial balancing, which is patently unconstitutional.” Id. at 329. Racial
balancing is a program designed “to assure within [the school’s] student body some
specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin.”
Id. (citations and quotation omitted).

“[P]roportional representation” is never a

constitutional “rationale for programs of preferential treatment.” Id. at 343.
190.

The only interest in using racial preferences in higher education that the

Supreme Court has accepted as “compelling” is the interest “in obtaining the
educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 343.
Redressing past discrimination does “not serve as a compelling interest, because a
university’s broad mission of education is incompatible with making the judicial,
legislative, or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations

53

necessary to justify remedial racial classification.”

Fisher, 133 S. Ct. at 2417

(citations and quotations omitted).
191.

The interest in student body diversity the Supreme Court has found

compelling “is not an interest in simply ethnic diversity, in which a specified
percentage of the student body is in effect guaranteed to be members of selected
ethnic groups, with the remaining percentage an undifferentiated aggregation of
students.” Fisher, 133 S. Ct. at 2418 (citation and quotations omitted). “[C]ritical
mass is defined by reference to the educational benefits that diversity is designed to
produce.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330.
192.

Even in the pursuit of critical mass, the Supreme Court has permitted

race to be used only as a “plus” factor in admissions decisions. Id. at 333. “[I]t
remains at all times the University’s obligation to demonstrate, and the Judiciary’s
obligations to determine, that admissions processes ‘ensure that each applicant is
evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes an applicant’s race or ethnicity
the defining feature of his or her application.’” Fisher, 133 S. Ct. at 2418 (quoting
Grutter, 539 U.S. at 337). Thus, even if “the University has established that its goal
of diversity is consistent with strict scrutiny, … there must still be a further judicial
determination that the admissions process meets strict scrutiny in its implementation.
The University must prove that the means chosen by the University to attain diversity
are narrowly tailored to that goal.” Id. at 2419-20.
193.

“Narrow tailoring also requires that the reviewing court verify that it is

‘necessary’ for a university to use race to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.
54

This involves a careful judicial inquiry into whether a university could achieve
sufficient diversity without using racial classifications.” Id. at 2420 (internal citation
omitted). Accordingly, strict scrutiny uniformly “require[s] a court to examine with
care, and not defer to, a university’s ‘serious, good faith consideration of workable
race-neutral alternatives.’” Id. (quoting Grutter, 539 U.S. at 339- 340).
194.

“Consideration by the university is of course necessary, but it is not

sufficient to satisfy strict scrutiny: The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied
that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of
diversity. If a nonracial approach ... could promote the substantial interest about as
well and at tolerable administrative expense, then the university may not consider
race.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted).
195.

As a consequence, “strict scrutiny imposes on the university the ultimate

burden of demonstrating, before turning to racial classifications, that available,
workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice.” Id. (emphasis added).
VIII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
196.

UNC-Chapel Hill’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate

admissions violates the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws. First,
UNC-Chapel Hill’s use of racial preferences is not narrowly tailored because UNCChapel Hill is not pursuing the critical-mass interest found permissible in Grutter by
failing to use race merely as “plus” factor. Second, UNC-Chapel Hill is not fully
utilizing a number of race-neutral alternatives that can achieve student body diversity.
Third, and last, whether or not UNC-Chapel Hill is found to be acting permissibly
55

under Supreme Court precedent, the Supreme Court should overrule any decision
holding that the Fourteenth Amendment or federal civil rights law ever permit the use
of racial preferences to achieve “diversity.”
COUNT I
Violation of The Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000d
et seq. (Failure To Use Race Merely As A “Plus” Factor In Admissions
Decisions).
197.

Plaintiff incorporates the allegations and averments contained in

paragraphs 1-196 as if fully set forth herein.
198.

UNC-Chapel Hill has intentionally discriminated against certain of

Plaintiff’s members on the basis of their race, color, or ethnicity in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and § 2000d et seq., by
employing an undergraduate admissions policy that does not merely use race as a
“plus” factor in admissions decisions in order to achieve student body diversity.
199.

Statistical and other evidence shows that each applicant is not evaluated

as an individual. Instead, race or ethnicity is the defining feature of the application.
Only using race or ethnicity as a dominant factor in admissions decisions could
account for the decision to admit certain African-American and Hispanic applicants
and deny admission to certain white and Asian-American applicants.
200.

Plaintiff’s members have been and will continue to be injured because

UNC-Chapel Hill has and will continue to deny them the opportunity to compete for
admission to UNC-Chapel Hill on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of

56

race or ethnicity due to its intentionally discriminatory admissions policies and
procedures.
201.

Defendants acted under color of law in developing and implementing

race-based policies that led UNC-Chapel Hill to deny Plaintiff’s members equal
protection of the laws and to discriminate against them in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and § 2000d et seq.
202.

Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2201, and a permanent injunction because there is no plain, adequate, or speedy
remedy at law to prevent UNC-Chapel Hill from continuing to use admissions
policies and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment and because the harm Plaintiff’s members will
otherwise continue to suffer is irreparable.
203.

Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1988.
COUNT II
Violation of The Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000d
et seq. (Race-Neutral Alternatives)
204.

Plaintiff incorporates the allegations and averments contained in

paragraphs 1-203 as if fully set forth herein.
205.

UNC-Chapel Hill has intentionally discriminated against certain of

Plaintiff’s members on the basis of their race, color, or ethnicity in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and § 2000d et seq., by
57

employing racial preferences in undergraduate admissions when there are available
race-neutral alternatives capable of achieving student body diversity.
206.

UNC-Chapel Hill’s use of racial preferences is narrowly tailored only if

using them is necessary to achieve student body diversity. If UNC-Chapel Hill can
achieve student body diversity without resorting to racial preferences, it is required to
do so as a matter of law. Moreover, UNC-Chapel Hill must have a strong basis in
evidence that a non-racial approach will not work about as well as a race-based
approach before turning to the use of racial preferences.
207.

There is no evidence that UNC-Chapel Hill studied all of the available

race-neutral alternatives and had a strong basis in evidence that none would work
about as well before turning to racial preferences.
208.

Whether UNC-Chapel Hill considered them all or not, there are a host

of race-neutral alternatives that if implemented can achieve student body diversity
without resorting to racial preferences. Among these alternatives, both individually
and collectively, are (a) increased use of non-racial preferences, including a
percentage plan, (b) increased financial aid, scholarships, and recruitment efforts, and
(c) elimination of admissions policies and practices that negatively affect minority
applicants.
209.

The use of race-neutral alternatives instead of racial preferences would

not only achieve student body diversity, it would eliminate the heavy costs that using
race as a factor in admissions decisions imposes on minority applicants who receive
such admissions preference, the North Carolina community, and society as a whole.
58

210.

Plaintiff’s members have been and will continue to be injured because

UNC-Chapel Hill has and will continue to deny them the opportunity to compete for
admission to UNC-Chapel Hill on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of
race or ethnicity due to its intentionally discriminatory admissions policies and
procedures.
211.

Defendants acted under color of law in developing and implementing

race-based policies that led UNC-Chapel Hill to deny Plaintiff’s members equal
protection of the laws and to discriminate against them in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and § 2000d et seq.
212.

Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2201, and a permanent injunction because there is no plain, adequate, or speedy
remedy at law to prevent UNC-Chapel Hill from continuing to use admissions
policies and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws and because the harm
Plaintiff’s members will otherwise continue to suffer is irreparable.
213.

Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1988.
COUNT III
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000d
et seq. (Any Use of Race As A Factor In Admissions).
214.

Plaintiff incorporates the allegations and averments contained in

paragraphs 1-213 as if fully set forth herein.
59

215.

UNC-Chapel Hill has intentionally discriminated against certain of

Plaintiff’s members on the basis of their race, color, or ethnicity in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and § 2000d et seq., by
employing an undergraduate admissions policy that uses race as a factor in
admissions.
216.

The Supreme Court’s decisions holding that there is a compelling

government interest in using race as a factor in admissions decisions in pursuit of
“diversity” should be overruled. Those decisions were wrongly decided at the time
they were issued, and they remain wrong today. “Diversity” is not an interest that
could ever justify the use of racial preferences under the Fourteenth Amendment and
federal civil rights laws.
217.

Even if there were a compelling government interest in “diversity” in

the abstract, however, the use of racial preferences in the educational setting
nevertheless should be forbidden for several important reasons.
218.

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in this area has been built on

mistakes of fact and law.

The Supreme Court first accepted the use of racial

preferences in admissions on the assumption that they would be used consistent with
the “Harvard Plan,” which purported to use race merely as a contextual factor in
filling the final few places in the entering class. But the Harvard Plan itself was
created in order to hide racial and ethnic discrimination. Thus, it is far from certain
that Harvard itself ever used race in this fashion. “The raison d’être for race-specific
affirmative action programs has simply never been diversity for the sake of
60

education.” Alan Dershowitz and Laura Hanft, Affirmative Action and the Harvard
College Diversity-Discretion Model: Paradigm or Pretext, 1 Cardozo L. Rev. 379,
407 (1979). It is instead “a clever post facto justification for increasing the number of
minority group students in the student body.” Id.
219.

In any event, neither Harvard nor UNC-Chapel Hill nor any other

college or university uses race in this manner now.

Indeed, UNC-Chapel Hill

strongly denies that it uses race as a “tie breaker” to fill the remaining few seats in the
entering class. Instead, college and universities, including UNC-Chapel Hill, claim to
use race in order to pursue a “critical mass” of underrepresented minorities in the
student body. But UNC-Chapel Hill is not pursuing this interest. Even when this
interest is actually being pursued, moreover, it is nothing more than racial balancing
in that it necessarily seeks to ensure a proportional number of students of certain races
or ethnicities in the entering class. Critical mass is a formula for ensuring “a specified
percentage of the student body is in effect guaranteed to be members of selected
ethnic groups, with the remaining percentage an undifferentiated aggregation of
students.” Bakke, 438 U.S. at 315 (Powell, J.).
220.

Ultimately, there is overwhelming evidence that colleges and

universities will take advantage of any leeway given by the Supreme Court to use the
dangerous tool of racial preferences in inappropriate ways. Colleges and universities,
if given the chance, will use racial preferences “for the ostensible purpose of
enhancing education diversity of the student body” with the true “goal of simply
increasing the number of minority persons in the universities and in the professions
61

that these universities feed.” Alan Dershowitz and Laura Hanft, Affirmative Action
and the Harvard College Diversity-Discretion Model: Paradigm or Pretext, 1
Cardozo L. Rev. 379, 385 (1979).
221.

There simply is no practical way to ensure that colleges and universities

will use race in their admissions processes in any way that would meet the narrow
tailoring requirement. The strong medicine of strict scrutiny has proven insufficient
to ensure that the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws operate in
conformity with racial neutrality except in those rare circumstances that justify the use
of this disfavored remedy. Time after time, district courts and courts of appeals have
been either unwilling or unable to force these colleges and university to provide a
strong evidentiary basis for their conclusion that use of racial preferences is necessary
to achieve diversity. Nor have they been willing to engage in the close review of
admissions programs to ensure that schools are treating each applicant as an
individual.
222.

There also have been important factual developments since this question

was last considered by the Supreme Court. There is now much evidence that raceneutral alternatives can achieve the benefits of diversity. This is crucially important
in light of the equally compelling evidence that racial preferences impose significant
costs on the university community, society in general, and the very minority students
these programs are purported to benefit.
223.

In the end, the costs of allowing the use of racial preferences in

admissions decisions—even in a limited way—far exceed any rapidly diminishing
62

benefits.

No principle of stare decisis counsels in favor of retaining decisions

allowing their use. Those decisions were not well reasoned, were predicated on
mistakes of fact, have been undermined by more recent developments, and have
proven to be unworkable. Any decision allowing the use of racial preferences in the
educational setting should be overruled.
224.

Plaintiff’s members have been and will continue to be injured because

UNC-Chapel Hill has and will continue to deny them the opportunity to compete for
admission to UNC-Chapel Hill on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of
race or ethnicity due to its intentionally discriminatory admissions policies and
procedures.
225.

Defendants acted under color of law in developing and implementing

race-based policies that led UNC-Chapel Hill to deny Plaintiff’s members equal
protection of the laws and to discriminate against them in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and § 2000d et seq.
226.

Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2201, and a permanent injunction because there is no plain, adequate, or speedy
remedy at law to prevent UNC-Chapel Hill from continuing to use admissions
policies and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment and because the harm Plaintiff’s members will
otherwise continue to suffer is irreparable.
227.

Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1988.
63

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., prays for the following
relief as to all counts:
(a)

A declaratory judgment, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28

U.S.C. § 2201, from the Court that Defendants’ admissions policies and procedures
violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., and federal civil rights statutes
42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983;
(b)

A declaratory judgment, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28

U.S.C. § 2201, from the Court that any use of race or ethnicity in the educational
setting violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., and federal civil rights statutes 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and
1983;
(c)

A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from using race as a

factor in future undergraduate admissions decisions at UNC-Chapel Hill;
(d)

A permanent injunction requiring Defendants to conduct all admissions

in a manner that does not permit those engaged in the decisional process to be aware
of or learn the race or ethnicity of any applicant for admission;
(e)

Attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other

applicable legal authority; and
(f)

All other relief this Court finds appropriate and just.

64

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands
a trial by jury in this action of all triable issues.
Dated: November 17, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Thomas R. McCarthy
Thomas R. McCarthy
/s/ William S. Consovoy
William S. Consovoy
/s/ J. Michael Connolly
J. Michael Connolly
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
Arlington, Virginia 22201
Telephone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
/s/ W. Ellis Boyle
W. Ellis Boyle Bar Number: 33826
Attorney for Plaintiff, LR 83.1 counsel
ELLIS BOYLE LAW PLLC
507 N. Blount St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Telephone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

65