Abigail Fisher Case Summary

Abigail Fisher, a white woman, has been the subject of many news stories lately. In a case brought to the Supreme Court in October of last year, Fisher claims to have suffered unfair treatment from the University of Texas. After being denied acceptance, presumably because of her racial aspects, Fisher decided to take her case to a higher power. In a story covering the initial hearing, a reporter describes the scene. Fisher’s lawyer argued against affirmative action on the grounds of unfair treatment. Some sided with Abigail, but all those who opposed her case said nothing about affirmative action as a means to increase fairness; their only claims stressed the importance of diversity in a university setting (Leonhardt 1). The Supreme Court is getting more and more appeals for cases concerning what seems to be a growing and important issue.

In 1997, three students were denied admission into the University of Michigan. Each of them, in turn, sued the school, charging them with discrimination. In one of the cases, a student was denied admission into Michigan’s law school. Chicago Sun-Times writers Dave Newbart and Kate Grossman reported that last Monday, June 23, 2003, in a 5-4 majority ruling, swing vote Justice Sandra Day O’Connor judged for the school maintaining their right to consider the race of their applicants. In a second decision, the court ruled that they supported the University’s use of race in their admissions policy, but use of a point system was unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment (Equal Protection Clause). Why then was the student still dissatisfied with the ruling? She was suing the school for reverse discrimination stemming from the University of Michigan’s use of affirmative action towards their applicants. The student was white.

Regardless of its good intentions, the Affirmative Action Laws began to influence the judgment of those with power to make decisions. In 2003, the Supreme Court argued a case when the University of Michigan Law School denied admission to Barbara Grutter, Caucasian. The university accepted a minority student with lower scores. The District Court found the law school’s use of race unlawful, but the decision was reversed. The use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that come from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause (Grutter). There was a great deal of controversy about the decision made.

Alex - Plaintiff v Abigail – Defendant In the case of Alex (plaintiff) vs. Abigail (defendant), we the jury find Abigail guilty of fraud through unanimous vote. Alex presented enough evidence to support the claims of breach of contract and fraud committed by the defendant. Our decision was based on determining if there was contract formed and if the terms of said contract were performed by both parties. We found that Abigail placed an advertisement with the intent to lead readers to believe that she was selling “purebred toy breed puppies” for $100, “quoted for immediate acceptance”.

Two recent Supreme Court cases involving non-minority students filing suit regarding being denied admission to two universities are the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger (539 U.S. 306) and the 2012 case of Fisher v. University of Texas (570 U.S.). In both these cases the non-minority students were not admitted to the universities involved due to the Supreme Court finding that “…diversity in h...

The case that had recently gone through the Supreme Court regarding Affirmative Action is Fisher v. Texas. This case was filed in 2008 and was ruled on in 7-1 favor in June of 2013. A white female brought the University of Texas to the court because she felt she was unfairly pushed out of admissions for a less qualified minority student. In the 2003 the Supreme Court heard the cases Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, which was a similar case with students who felt they were passed over in University of Michigan’s admission process. Affirmative Action has been redefined over the years in regards to how much race can be factored in to a school’s admissions procedure. Supporters of Affirmative Action say it is still a viable way to insure that diversity stays in the classroom and in the work place. In contrast those who are against Affirmative Action believe that this law is really just reverse racism. To quote Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, while he was presiding over another Affirmative Action case California v Bakke, “Preferring members of any group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. This the constitution forbids” (Stohr, 2004, p.66). The constitution

and other qualifications putting less focus on grades and Test scores (Brannen). This favoritism for minorities in admissions is implies that the students currently enrolled are their only because they have preferences. The main argument prosecution professed was the conflicting issues between the provisions articulated inf Title 4 of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the equal protection act in the fourteenth amendment.

In 2003 there were two cases brought against the University of Michigan dealing with affirmative action policies. One was dealing with the undergraduate a...

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:

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.