olicy under which the plaintiffs were considered and rejected was not `narrowly tailored' and was therefore unlawful" (Sparks, 1994, p. 553). The dual admissions procedure instituted for minority applicants was identified as the major culprit. In the face of a federal mandate to admit more minority students and the need to process a large number of applications, the UT Law School had instituted a dual admissions system. In this dual system, the files of minority applicants would get a more careful and considered reading. In contrast, the admission decisions for non-minority applicants were based on the heavily formulaic consideration of the Texas Index (TI) score. The TI score was the result of multiplying the grade-point average by ten and adding it to the LSAT score. By 1994, the law school had long since abandoned that specific admissions procedure. Moreover, the District Court decision was a resounding reaffirmation of the need of race-conscious aftirmative action to mitigate past and recent if not present-day discrimination in Texas. Judge Sparks' decision was clear and compelling. On the claim of "reverse discrimination," he found that: The plaintiffs have contended that any preferential treatment to a group based on race violates the Fourteenth Amendment and, therefore, is unconstitutional. However, such a simplistic application of the Fourteenth Amendment would ignore the long history of pervasive racial discrimination in our society that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to remedy and the complexities of achieving the societal goal of overcoming the past effects of that discrimination (p. 554).On the justification of affirmative action Sparks wrote: The reasoning behind affirmative action is simple--because society has a long history of discriminating against minorities, it is not realistic to assume that the removal of barriers can suddenly make minority individuals equal and able to avail themselves of all opportunities. T...
