The main reason why this admissions process is constitutional is because the American dream of an integrated society in which all U.S. citizens, regardless of race, has the same civil liberties as one another. The idea of this integrated society expands into our nation’s classrooms. If a public university wishes to use a student’s race as a mode for accepting him/her is unconstitutional, but in this case of Fisher v. University of Texas no such rule of acceptance is implemented, thus making the university’s actions constitutional. The University of Texas has proved that their student’s race is used in the final decision but it is a small part of a much bigger and rigorous process in order to maintain a more holistic campus. This same process of accepting students was used by the University of Michigan Law School in Grutter v. Bollinger. The court ruled on the side of the university because of their desire for a mixture of cultures among their students. The university’s careful process of omitting students because of the student’s race and other qualities, made their case stronger. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke this court ruled the quota system for the set amount of minority students to be accepted was unconstitutional because it is discriminatory to all non-minority. A strict line put in place such as the one used by the University of California completely takes away a citizen’s liberty, without due process of law. In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 the court ruled on the side of the petitioner because the respondent only used a student’s race for diversifying their district and not for making their district more “holistic.” A more “holistic” campus on the University of Texas is the dream of the admission counselors which makes their actions constitutional.