ALITO, J., dissenting
conclusion that it was “not getting a variety of perspectives among African-Americans or Hispanics” was the fact that the Top Ten Percent Plan admits underprivileged minorities from highly segregated schools). In effect, UT asks the Court “to assume”—without any evidence—“that minorities admitted under the Top Ten Percent Law . . . are somehow more homogenous, less dynamic, and more undesirably stereotypical than those admitted under holistic review.” 758 F. 3d, at 669–670 (Garza, J., dissenting). And UT’s assumptions appear to be based on the pernicious stereotype that the African-Americans and Hispanics admitted through the Top Ten Percent Plan only got in because they did not have to compete against very many whites and Asian-Americans. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 42–43 (Dec. 9, 2015). These are “the very stereotypical assumptions [that] the Equal Protection Clause forbids.” Miller, 515 U. S., at 914. UT cannot satisfy its burden by attempting to “substitute racial stereotype for evidence, and racial prejudice for reason.” Calhoun v. United States, 568 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 4) (SOTOMAYOR, J., respecting denial of certiorari).
In addition to relying on stereotypes, UT’s argument that it needs racial preferences to admit privileged minorities turns the concept of affirmative action on its head. When affirmative action programs were first adopted, it was for the purpose of helping the disadvantaged. See, e.g., Bakke, 438 U. S., at 272–275 (opinion of Powell, J.) (explaining that the school’s affirmative action program was designed “to increase the representation” of “ ‘economically and/or educationally disadvantaged’ applicants”). Now we are told that a program that tends to admit poor and disadvantaged minority students is inadequate because it does not work to the advantage of those who are more fortunate. This is affirmative action gone wild.
It is also far from clear that UT’s assumptions about the socioeconomic status of minorities admitted
