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).
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.
The name of this case and the specific facts, however, were unavailable at this time.9 Obviously affirmative action and reverse discrimination are still heavily debated issues. This is because they affect all people of all races and ethnicities. Conclusion Allan Bakke was denied his fourteenth amendment right to equal protection of the laws. In addition the University of California at Davis violated Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. By order of the Supreme Court Bakke was admitted and th e numerical quotas of the special admissions program were deemed unconstitutional. Justice was served to Bakke, but future generations who are not minorities may be plagued by the other half of the decision: That race may still be used as a "plus" on an application.
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.
Throughout the 1950s, the NAACP with the help of Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall pursued lawsuits against the “separate but equal” policy instated by the Plessy v. Ferguson case. For years, colleges and universities in which there was no African American counterpart avoided court orders to admit black students by hastily setting up “equal” counterparts. But in 1950, the Supreme Court ordered that a black student be admitted to the University of Texas Law School, despite the fact that the state “…had established a “school” for him in the basement” (Foner 953). The court declared that there was no way that this “school” was equal, and demanded that the student be admitted to the law school, sparking an era that called for desegregation. Later, in 1954, a landmark decision came from the Supreme Court as a result of the Brown v. BOE case. In the early 1950s, a man named Oliver Brown went to court to fight that fact that his daughter “…was forced to walk across dangerous railroad tracks each morning rather than being allowed to attend a nearby school restricted to whites” (Foner 953). The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and on May 17, 1954, the court declared that “Segregation in public education…violated the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment” (Foner 954), arguing that the
In the beginning of Dinesh D’Souza’s book Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, he gives enumerable examples of preferential treatment to certain races, ethnicities, sexualities and genders on college campuses and in the work force. D’Souza focuses primarily on where people have been denied what they feel is deserved, such as admission, a job or a place in a sorority/fraternity. On page three of D’Souza’s book, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, he gives the point of the University of California at Berkeley’s admission:
The issue of Affirmative Action, preferences towards persons of racial minorities to compensate for prior discrimination, in college admissions is a quite complicated one. Many sides must be explored to gain a better understanding of the theories and views on this issue. It is not easily answered with a yes or no. Since its inception, Affirmative Action’s use has been a major debate in American society. Many questions are left to be investigated. Many believe that we should live in a society where preferential treatment could be eliminated, and admission to college is based solely on one’s merit and character, yet this view seems quite unrealistic.
The problems exhibited in Michigan were based on the university’s point admission process. This was a major problem. By awarding points to students, based solely on being a minority, living in the state, and have athletic ability, eliminated many students that had a great deal of academic ability. This statement was issued after the lawsuit went public, by the university president.
In the Fisher V. Texas (2016) Supreme Court Case, most of the above cases were used as a precedent to take the final decision in this particular case. According to Oyez.org, the Fisher V. Texas (2016) case started when Abigail Fisher applied to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 and was denied admission. Fisher did not qualify for the texas top ten percent plan, which I explained above, so she was not guaranteed admission, and she had to compete for the remaining spots. The university used race as one factor in the holistic review, which was purposely to ensure diversity in the student body. According to Oyez.org, “Fisher sued the University and argued that the use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Clegg, expanding on the expense of discrimination towards scholars, displays how discrimination has a single benefit: diversity. Likewise, Abigail Fisher, plaintiff in the recent case Fisher v. University of Texas, has better grades than the average needed to gain admission for African-American and Hispanic students, yet was rejected from the University of Texas. Fisher, who is white, was forced to attend the l...
The Supreme Court's ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger and in Gratz v. Bollinger are two compelling and complex cases. In the Grutter v. Bollinger case, the Supreme court favored that race and ethnicity along with other factors are justifiable in the admission process of promoting a diverse and inclusive student body on the premises of state law schools. I agree with the court's decision because minorities only make up a small percentage on college campuses and universities, and that race and ethnicity does play a crucial role in recruiting students of colors from various cultural backgrounds. Students must be trained scholars who know how to interact with people from all walks of life and they must be able to adapt and understand different people in different environments in a given context. The goal is for everyone
Gose, Ben, and Schmidt, Peter. “Ruling Against Affirmative Action Could Alter Legal Debate and Admissions Practices.” Chronicle of Higher Education. (2001): 36.
...& Hart, M. (2013). Considering class: College access and diversity. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 7(2), 367–403.
Affirmative action policies were created to help level the playing field in American society. Supporters claim that these plans eliminate economic and social disparities to minorities, yet in doing so, they’ve only created more inequalities. Whites and Asians in poverty receive little to none of the opportunities provided to minorities of the same economic background (Messerli). The burden of equity has been placed upon those who were not fortunate enough to meet a certain school’s idea of “diversity” (Andre, Velasquez, and Mazur). The sole reason for a college’s selectivity is to determine whether or not a student has the credentials to attend that school....
The University of Texas has made way in class-based affirmative action by creating a non-race based affirmative action model known as the Top Ten Model. This model guarantees that every Texas student who graduates in the top ten percent of their high school class will receive admission to the university. Many have argued that this still leaves out specific majors and classes that are not diversified and minority students with higher test scores that are not in the top ten percent. The courts ruled against the plaintiffs’ argument and the model still stands in place 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.