hear a strongly divided court in terms of the questions that were asked. i heard a strongly divided court, but the problem is we have precedence. we have fisher one and didn t hear anything new today to sway the court from the principles that they have repeatedly upheld. you heard skepticism certainly to be sure. and even in some instances hostility to affirmative action. but the oweness was really on abigail fisher to bring forward something than in the past and had nothing. one of the things justice kennedy said that was so interesting, if there s more that you need to hear from the university, then we should maybe, perhaps, be remanding this case back to the trial court to allow the university of texas to come forward and provide the additional explanations and information that you want. so nothing that i heard today suggested that this should be a win for ms. fisher. i don t do predictions, so we never know what the court will
internetting coming out of texas is that the top ten percent plan was heralded initially as a solution to exactly the problem of race-based analysis around affirmative action. okay, everybody in all the schools, if you re in the top ten percent, recognizing that there are all of these inequities and even racial segregation within the schools, we re going to take you because there s a state system. and i think there s a way in which folks feel a genuine sense of how that feels fair as a percentage question, and yet you only fill 75% of the class that way. you got to make choices on the rest of it. so does this reconsideration also impact the ten percent plan? what s at stake here? i think it s going to have socioeconomic incentives at the center. in fisher one that was set up as a legal test that universities are required to show that race neutral alternatives are not sufficient to create the racial diversity that they need on campus before turning to