Why that 'Stay Mad Abby' Hashtag Shouldn't Have Been So Cut-and-dry

You may have seen the tweets of friends or family, or you may have stumbled upon it during its media coverage, but #staymadabby trended in early December 2015. The hashtag followed statements made by the now deceased Justice Antonin Scalia (whose seat may be filled by Merrick Garland) during the Dec. 9 oral argument. This was the second time the case has been argued at the Supreme Court, which is unusual, due to some procedural issues based on the level of scrutiny used on UT Austin's admissions policy.
While these tweets were technically in response to Justice Scalia's statements that black students may fair better at institutions that go at a slower pace, as they couldn't graduate from institutions of that higher caliber. This was obviously, incorrect as proved by the seemingly endless flood of 'Stay Mad Abby' hashtags that followed the oral argument.
However, in consideration of the hashtag and the situation, it seems as though we're faulting Abigail Fisher (the petitioner) instead of Justice Scalia who actually said these things. The case, challenges the use of race in the UT Austin admissions policy and its sustainability under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Fisher's case, while it does seem to partly challenge affirmative action, does not entirely dismiss the use of race as a whole. It does however, refer back to Justice Powell's decision in Bakke and its emphasis on narrow tailoring. The case also does not rule out that the implications of a diverse student body are a compelling interest. Rather, it says that even after having sent the case back to the Circuit court for a strict scrutiny analysis, this wasn't done because:

1. Traditional strict scrutiny application would show that their diversity interest at UT isn't clearly defined
2. If the interest isn't clearly defined, there is no way to narrowly tailor it to that interest
3. Other, equally successful, race-neutral alternatives could be implemented
4. There is no clear justification for the need (this was more or less dismissed by the court)
5. Too much deference is given in regards to the program's implementation

Part of the UT Austin campus. Fisher applied in 2008 and was
considered under the holistic review program which includes race
 as a factor of many. (photo courtesy of wikipedia)

The court has also clearly decided (by hearing this case not once, but twice) both that the Fisher case has standing and is a good enough vehicle to hear this case - whatever they decide. Whether the court decides in favor of Fisher and essentially knocks down some precedent, or in favor of UT and affirms its precedent, this case should clearly define terms (quota, critical mass, diversity interest) and set more clear guidelines for the future. So, don't blame Fisher for bringing a case against UT for what she saw as race-based discrimination. It's her right to do so, and the court will decide based upon its extensive legal knowledge. This hashtag that went so viral late last year really should have been directed at Antonin Scalia and therefore phrased as such. 

--- What aspect of Fisher's case do you find most/least compelling? What hashtag would you have made up for Scalia in place of #staymadabby ? Let us know in the comments. ---