isparities of opportunity and prevents the use of most effective means to minimize them. Ironically, the legal tlaw which ultimately laid the basis in Hopwood for the end of affirmative action in Texas was the Law School's tlawed, unconstitutional implementation of the admission system it adopted under pressure to desegregate its student body. The fact that Latinos have faced restricted civil rights throughout their history in the U.S. and that they are still subject to racial discrimination would be reason enough to be pessimistic about Latino civil rights in the future. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court's Hopwood decision banning the consideration of race in higher education admissions and financial aid decisions in Texas is an indication that whatever progress Latinos have made towards full participation in higher education is under fierce attack. Hopwood v. State of TexasAlmost two years ago, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Hopwood v. Texas, the University of Texas Law School's "reverse discrimination" lawsuit filed by four white students who claimed that they had been denied admission in 1992 in favor of less qualified minorities. Since it was handed down, Hopwood has ended affirmative action in Texas higher education. Higher educational policy is still in ilux. The legislature and education administrators have made many changes in response to Hopwood and they are considering many more. The Hopwood case was first tried before federal district court in Austin before Judge Sam Sparks without ajury during May 16-25, 1994. On August 19, 1994, Judge Sparks issued his ruling which was technically a victory for the plaintiffs. The U.S. District Court ruled that the University of Texas Law School's affirmative action admissions program was unconstitutional. The judge found that "while certain types of race-conscious admissions are constitutionally justified at the law school, the 1992 admissions p...
