Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina

• Decision Date: 18 October 2021
• Docket Number: 1:14CV954
• Parties: STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina

567 F.Supp.3d 580

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., Plaintiff,

v.UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Defendants.

1:14CV954

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina.

Signed October 18, 2021

Andrew Allen Freeman, Daniel Alan M. Ruley, Bell Davis & Pitt, P.A., Winston-Salem, NC, Thomas R. McCarthy, Bryan K. Weir, James F. Hasson, John Michael Connolly, William S. Consovoy, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, Arlington, VA, Patrick Strawbridge, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Amy L. Van Gelder, Marianne H. Combs, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, Chicago, IL, Stephanie A. Brennan, Tamika Henderson, N.C. Department of Justice, Raleigh, NC, Lara A. Flath, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants 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, Thomas W. Ross, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Carol L. Folt, James W. Dean, Jr., Stephen M. Farmer.

TRIAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...585

II. PARTIES AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY...586

A. Parties...586

B. Procedural History...587

III. FINDINGS OF FACT: UNC'S INTEREST IN THE EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY IS SUBSTANTIAL AND LONG-STANDING...588

A. UNC Has Made the Deliberate Decision to Pursue the Educational Benefits of Diversity...588

B. UNC Has Offered a Principled, Reasoned Explanation for Its Decision...589

C. The Educational Benefits of Diversity that the University Seeks are Sufficiently Measurable to Permit Judicial Scrutiny...591

D. The Educational Benefits that the University seeks are being Experienced...592

E. UNC's Efforts in Pursuing the Educational Benefits of Diversity While Ongoing, Are Unfinished...593

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT: UNC'S ADMISSIONS PROCEDURES MANDATE A HOLISTIC EVALUATION OF CANDIDATES...594

A. Overview of UNC's Admissions Process...595

B. Application Requirements...595

C. Application Readers...596

D. Application Evaluation Process...598

1. Admissions Procedures...598

2. Admissions Criteria...599

V. FINDINGS OF FACT: NON-STATISTICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DISCRIMINATION...601

A. There is No Evidence that UNC Conceals the Improper Use of Race Behind Opaque Procedures...602

1. UNC's Intent...602

a. Provisional Decision Stage...602

b. SGR Process...603

2. UNC's Multiple Checks, Balances, and Quality Controls...604

B. There is No Non-Statistical Evidence that Race is a Predominant Factor in Admissions...605

1. UNC Uses Race as One of Multiple Factors in Recruiting Prospective Students...605

2. The Reporting of Race Does Not Suggest Its Improper Use...606

3. The Consideration of Race at all Stages of the Admissions Process is Consistent with How UNC Evaluates All Factors...607

C. There is No Evidence that UNC Has Not Taken a Serious Accounting of Its Use of Race...607

1. There is Evidence of Attention to the Use of Race Throughout the Admissions Process...608

2. There is Evidence that UNC Has Defined and Assessed the Concept of Critical Mass...608

a. UNC Has Defined Critical Mass by Reference to the Educational Benefits of Diversity Critical Mass is Designed to Produce...608

b. UNC Has Conducted Periodic Reviews to Reach the Conclusion that it Has Not Attained Critical Mass...610

VI. FINDINGS OF FACT: STATISTICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DISCRIMINATION...612

A. The Parties’ Experts are Highly Qualified...612

B. Overview of Research Questions and Process...613

1. Professor Arcidiacono...613

2. Professor Hoxby...615

C. Descriptive Statistics...615

1. Basic Findings...615

2. Deciles Analysis...617

D. Econometric Modeling...619

1. Professor Arcidiacono's Process...620

2. Accuracy and Fit of Professor Arcidiacono's Preferred Model...621

a. Professor Arcidiacono's Model Predicts Admissions Decisions with a High Degree of Accuracy...621

b. Professor Arcidiacono's Model is Overfit...622

c. There is No Evidence that UNC Has Implemented a Formulaic Process that Precludes Individualized Consideration of Each Candidate...623

3. Professor Arcidiacono Computes Some Variables in Ways that Undermine His Conclusions...623

a. Imputation of GPA and Standardized Test Scores...623

b. Reader Ratings...625

c. Shapley Decomposition...626

4. Professor Arcidiacono's Quantitative Analysis Fails to Show that Race is a Predominant Factor...627

a. Transformational Analysis...627

b. Average Marginal Effect...629

c. Admitted URM Analysis...630

d. Capacity Constraints...631 5. Professor Hoxby's Regression Model Demonstrates that Race is Not a Predominant Factor in UNC's Admissions Process...631

a. Explanatory Power of Professor Hoxby's Model...632

b. Magnitude of Racial Preferences...633

6. Conclusions...634

VII. FINDINGS OF FACT: UNC HAS MADE A SERIOUS, GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO CONSIDER RACE-NEUTRAL ALTERNATIVES...634

A. The University Has Long Considered Race-Neutral Alternatives...635

B. UNC Has Augmented Its Recruitment and Financial Aid Programs...636

1. Student Recruitment...636

2. Financial Aid...637

C. UNC Has Increased Diversity Through Transfer Students...638

D. Eliminating the Early Action Deadline and Legacy Preferences Would Have a De Minimis Effect...639

E. Changing the Admissions Evaluation Process...640

1. Professor Hoxby's Process...640

2. Socioeconomic Simulations...643

3. Top X Percent Simulations...645

4. Geography-Based Simulations and Additional Concepts...647

F. Conclusions...648

VIII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW...648

A. Overview...648

B. Controlling Supreme Court Precedent Permits Race-Conscious Admissions...649

1. Regents of University of California v. Bakke , 438 U.S. 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978)...649

2. Gratz v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 244, 123 S.Ct. 2411, 156 L.Ed.2d 257 (2003) (" Gratz "); and Grutter v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 306, 123 S.Ct. 2325, 156 L.Ed.2d 304 (2003) (" Grutter ")...650

3. Fisher v. Univ. of Tex., 570 U.S. 297, 133 S.Ct. 2411, 186 L.Ed.2d 474 (2013) (" Fisher I "); and Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. , 579 U.S. 365, 136 S. Ct. 2198, 195 L.Ed.2d 511 (2016) (" Fisher II ")...652

C. The University's Undergraduate Admissions Program Withstands Strict Scrutiny...655

1. Conclusions of Law: The University Has a Compelling Interest in Pursuing The Educational Benefits of Diversity...655

2. Conclusions of Law (Count I): UNC Has Demonstrated that Its Use of Race in Admissions Is Narrowly Tailored...658

a. SFFA's Non-Statistical Evidence Does Not Support a Conclusion that UNC Has Engaged in Discrimination...659

b. SFFA's Statistical Evidence Does Not Support a Conclusion that UNC Has Engaged in Discrimination...660

3. Conclusions of Law (Count II): UNC Has Demonstrated that a Nonracial Approach Would Not Promote the Interests of Diversity About as Well as Its Race-Conscious Process...662

CONCLUSION...666

ORDER...667

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. ("SFFA"), initiated this action on November 7, 2014, against the named University of North Carolina Defendants ("UNC Defendants"), alleging that the use of race in its undergraduate admissions process at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ("the University" or "UNC") violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (" Sections 1981 and 1983"), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. ("Title VI"). (ECF No. 1 at 2 (Compl.).) Specifically, SFFA alleges that the University "has intentionally discriminated against certain of [its] members on the basis of their race, color, or ethnicity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and [federal law]" by: (1) "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"; (2) "employing racial preferences in undergraduate admissions where there are available race-neutral alternatives capable of achieving student body diversity"; and (3) "employing an undergraduate admissions policy that uses race as a factor in admissions." (Id. ¶¶ 198, 205, 215.) SFFA seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id. at 64.)

The UNC Defendants counter that the admissions process at the University is constitutionally permissible under current law in that it withstands strict scrutiny. First, they argue that "the University's compelling interest in the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body" is clear and uncontested. (ECF No. 245 at 8.) Second, they argue that "consistent with Supreme Court guidance, the University engages in an individualized, holistic review of each application for admission, considering race flexibly, as only one factor" in the evaluation process. (Id. at 10.) Third and finally, UNC Defendants argue that it has demonstrated a serious, good-faith consideration of race-neutral alternatives but has "found none that would allow it to achieve its compelling interest about as well and at tolerable administrative expense." (Id. at 11.) In this trial UNC Defendants seek judgment in their favor on Counts I and II of the Complaint. (ECF No. 30 at 115 (Answer).) Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint was resolved by prior Order of this Court. (ECF No. 210); see Section II.B.7, infra.

II. PARTIES AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Parties

Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. is a voluntary membership association with more than 20,000 members, including applicants...