herefore, an evaluation of the purpose and necessity of affirmative action in Texas' system of higher education requires an understanding of past discrimination against blacks and Mexican Americans, the minorities receiving preferences in this cause, and the types of barriers these minorities have encountered in the educational system (p. 554). Court finds, in the context of the law school's admissions process, obtaining the educational benefits that tlow from a racially and ethnically diverse student body remains a sufficiently compelling interest to support the use of racial classifications (p. 571 ).Sparks found that the law school's procedure of giving minority applications separate consideration was flawed: The Court holds that the aspect of the law school's affirmative action program giving minority applicants a "plus" is lawful. But the failure to provide comparative evaluation among all individual applicants in determining which were the best qualified to comprise the class, including appropriate consideration of a "plus" factor, created a procedure in which admission of the best qualified was not assured in 1992. Under the 1992 procedure, the possibility existed that the law school could select a minority, who, even with a "plus" factor, was not as qualified to be a part of the entering class as a nonminority denied admission. Thus, the admission ofthe nonminority candidate would be solely on the basis of race or ethnicity and not based on individual comparison and evaluation. This is the aspect of the procedure that is flawed and must be eliminated (p. 579).On the plaintiffs central claim; i.e., that they were not admitted in favor of less qualified minority applicants, Judge Sparks said: What the chart [of Texas Index or TI scores] does not prove, however, is that race or ethnic origin was the reason behind the denial of admission to the plaintiffs. Although the plaintiffs had higher TIs than the majority of minority applican...
