For the last several years, the United States legal system has been handling a lawsuit filed by Abigail Fisher against the University of Texas (What you need to know, 2013). The lawsuit centers around questions of whether and how race may be used in college admission decisions. Abigail Fisher, a white female student who applied to the University of Texas brought about a lawsuit after she was denied admission. Abigail Fisher believes that she was illegally discrimi-nated against because she was part of a group of applicants whose applications were processed using criteria that gave extra consideration to applicants that were black and Hispanic. According to the University of Texas automatic entry is not granted to any student unless they graduated in the top ten percent of their class, which Abigail Fisher did not. Abigail Fisher is arguing that the University of Texas did not use admission policies that deemphasized race in their decisions to accept or reject an applicant (What you need to know, 2013). Ms. Fisher, is suing on the basis that she believes the University of Texas violated the limits on race-conscious admissions policies that were set forth by the Supreme Court in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003. The case of Grutter v. Bollinger dealt with the policies of the University of Michigan law school. The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that colleges seek-ing to promote diversity must give "serious good-faith consideration" to race neutral alternatives to affirmative action preferences. Ms. Fisher believes that the University of Texas’s 10 percent plan resulted in sufficient enough diversity on the campus that there was no need to give any ex-tra consideration to applicants based on race. Since the results of Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003 the Supreme Court has become more conservative and more hostile towards racial preferences (What you need to know, 2013). This explains why the case has become such a lengthy process as the future admissions of college stu-dents are at stake. In June of this year, the United States Supreme Court came to a decision to send the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals because they felt as if the Fifth Court did not apply the strictest scrutiny to the University of Texas's admission policies (McGee, 2013). On average, most students that are admitted to the University of Texas get in based on whether they are in the top ten percent of their graduating class, there are some students that receive ad-mission based upon what the university calls a "holistic review" (McGee, 2013).
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
In 1973 a thirty-three year-old Caucasian male named Allan Bakke applied to and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. In 1974 he filed another application and was once again rejected, even though his test scores were considerably higher than various minorities that were admitted under a special program. This special program specified that 16 out of 100 possible spaces for the students in the medical program were set aside solely for minorities, while the other 84 slots were for anyone who qualified, including minorities. What happened to Bakke is known as reverse discrimination. Bakke felt his rejections to be violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, so he took the University of California Regents to the Superior Court of California. It was ruled that "the admissions program violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment"1 The clause reads as follows:"...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."2 The court ruled that race could not be a factor in admissions. However, they did not force the admittance of Bakke because the court could not know if he would have been admitted if the special admissions program for minorities did not exist.
Facts: On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over the fence he would get away and also “figured” that Garner was unarmed. Officer Hymon then shot him, hitting him in the back of the head. In using deadly force to prevent the escape of Garner, Hymon used the argument that actions were made under the authority of the Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. Although the department’s policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute it still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. Garner’s fathers’ argument was made that his son was shot unconstitutionally because he was captured and shot possessing ten dollars that he had stolen and being unarmed showing no threat of danger to the officer. The incident was then reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm’s Revie...
According to the Justice Kagan, in the case of Florida vs. Harris, “we considered how a court should determine if the “alert” of drug-detention during a traffic stop provides probable cause to search a vehicle” (Kagan).
Does the first amendment overrule the Texas law that forbids the desecration of a venerated object under these circumstances?
When Bakke applied again in 1974 he was once again rejected. This time Bakke sued the University of California. His position was that the school had excluded him on the basis of his race and violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the California Constitution, and civil rights legislation. The trial court ruled in Bakke's favor, however they did not order the University of California to admit him. Bakke appealed to the California Supreme Court where they ruled that the school's admissions programs were unconstitutional and ordered the school to admit Bakke as a student.
“Even in the modern day world, women struggle against discriminatory stigmas based on their sex. However, the beginnings of the feminist movement in the early 20th century set in motion the lasting and continuing expansion of women's rights” (Open Websites). One such organization that pushed for women’s rights was the National American Women Suffrage Association (NAWSA) established in 1890. The NAWSA was the largest suffrage organization and worked toward securing the right to vote. The NAWSA however was split into two, the NAWSA and the National Women’s Party (NWP), when suffragists were disagreeing on how to achieve their goal.
subject to the O'Brien test, and that the second was a direct maneuver to limit expression.
The Texas vs Johnson case didn't drastically change the way people viewed things. Yes, the trial caused a lot of uproar, especially in Texas because of its patriotism, but it wasn't a case in which a law or amendment needed to be changed but rather was a case in which an amendment needed to be understood. Johnson’s act of burning the American flag in front of Dallas City Hall, in order to protest the Reagan administration during the Republican National Convention, was deemed as a sign of “symbolic” speech. Johnson’s act was ruled to be protected by the first amendment because speech was considered more than just the written word. The Supreme Court ruled it as such because of prior cases such as “Stromberg v. California” and “Tinker v. Des
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
On February 26, 1946 Herman Sweatt, who had excellent academic credentials and met all standards for acceptance into the university, was denied admission into the University of Texas Law School because of his African American race. At the time, the University of Texas had a separate law school for African Americans to attend because segregation was still widely accepted in the United States. The University of Texas Law School had 16 full-time professors, 3 part-time professors, 850 students, and over 65,000 volumes in their library along with an excellent reputation ("Find Law"). Meanwhile the separate college for African Americans had 5 full-time professors, 23 attending students, and only 16,500 volumes to study (“Find Law”). The inequality between the two schools was obvious, and many applicants began to question change among the university. Herman, along with many others, denied their acceptance into the separate college and decided to fight for equal education. Being on the verging years of civil rights and sixties revolution, the student’s will power was driven by their years of being unequal in their cruel society. These denials would prove to be the beginning of a long and stressful road that would later influence the decision of Brown vs. Board of Education (Cantu).
Affirmative action, the act of giving preference to an individual for hiring or academic admission based on the race and/or gender of the individual has remained a controversial issue since its inception decades ago. Realizing its past mistake of discriminating against African Americans, women, and other minority groups; the state has legalized and demanded institutions to practice what many has now consider as reverse discrimination. “Victims” of reverse discrimination in college admissions have commonly complained that they were unfairly rejected admission due to their race. They claimed that because colleges wanted to promote diversity, the colleges will often prefer to accept applicants of another race who had significantly lower test scores and merit than the “victims”. In “Discrimination and Disidentification: The Fair-Start Defense of Affirmative Action”, Kenneth Himma responded to these criticisms by proposing to limit affirmative action to actions that negate unfair competitive advantages of white males established by institutions (Himma 277 L. Col.). Himma’s views were quickly challenged by his peers as Lisa Newton stated in “A Fair Defense of a False Start: A Reply to Kenneth Himma” that among other rationales, the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action (Newton 146 L. Col.). This paper will also argue that the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action because it cannot be fairly applied in the United States of America today. However, affirmative action should still be allowed and reserved for individuals whom the state unfairly discriminates today.
Affirmative action has been a controversial topic ever since it was established in the 1960s to right past wrongs against minority groups, such as African Americans, Hispanics, and women. The goal of affirmative action is to integrate minorities into public institutions, like universities, who have historically been discriminated against in such environments. Proponents claim that it is necessary in order to give minorities representation in these institutions, while opponents say that it is reverse discrimination. Newsweek has a story on this same debate which has hit the nation spotlight once more with a case being brought against the University of Michigan by some white students who claimed that the University’s admissions policies accepted minority students over them, even though they had better grades than the minority students. William Symonds of Business Week, however, thinks that it does not really matter. He claims that minority status is more or less irrelevant in college admissions and that class is the determining factor.
Minority groups are given different criteria to meet when applying to college. This is an attempt to compensate for the hardships many minority groups had to face in history. As examined by Hoover Institution’s Thomas Sowell this advantage benefits minority applicants from middle and upper class backgrounds. As a result of admissions using a zero sum game, which is where one person’s gain is another person’s loss, these preferences hurt some applicants who meet admission standards in unequal numbers (Sacks and Thiel). If this predilection were genuinely meant to redress disadvantages, it would not be given on the basis of ethnicity. Supporters of affirmative action claim that affirmative action advocates diversity. But if diversity were the goal, then