remains how best to adapt the Title VII employment framework to an educational context and to the unique historical circumstances of this case. C. Applying a Modified Title VII Standard in the Educational Context Under § 1981 Only step three of the traditional three-stage Title VII analysis, Patterson, 491 U.S. at 187, 109 S.Ct. 2363; Johnson, 480 U.S. at 626, 107 S.Ct. 1442, is at issue here. At step one, Plaintiff established a prima facie case by showing (as the Schools concede) that the Kamehameha Schools consider applicants’ Hawaiian ancestry, or lack thereof, in making admissions decisions. At step two, the Kamehameha Schools have specified their remedial admissions policy as the non-discriminatory rationale for their decisions. See Johnson, 480 U.S. at 626, 107 S.Ct. 1442 (<HOLDING>). The validity of this policy is the focus of
holding that an affirmative action plan provides a legitimate reason for a hiring decision that considers race or ethnicity holding that an employee may establish that the legitimate reason for an employment decision offered by an employer is pretextual by showing by a preponderance of the evidence either that the discrim inatory reason was the true reason motivating the employers conduct or that the profferred legitimate reason was false holding that custody decision based on race is not justified holding that universities can  consider race or ethnicity more flexibly as a plus factor in the context of individualized consideration of each and every applicant and that a diverse student body is a sufficiently compelling interest to justify such use of race holding that even an incorrect belief that an employees performance is inadequate can be a legitimate reason for an adverse employment action