Abigail Fisher Case

The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was argued on October 12, 1977 and decision of the Supreme Court was decided on June 26, 1978. It was questioned if the University of California violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by having an affirmative action policy that led to repeated rejection of Bakke’s application for admission to UC medical school at Davis.

In 2009, United States District Court upheld the University’s policy, finding that it meets the standards laid out in Grutter V. Bollinger. The decision was affirmed by a Fifth Circuit panel. In this ruling, Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote, “ever-increasing number of minorities gaining admission under this ‘ During the case proceedings, Fisher enrolled at Louisiana State University, from which she graduated in 2012. In 2011, Michalewicz withdrew from the case, leaving Fisher as the sole

In the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) case, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, tried applying to medical school twice and was denied, even though his GPA, and test scores were better than others who were recently admitted. According to the court, they believed that “no applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as measured by standards applied without regard to race”. Because of this, the shut down the system that discriminated against other races. In the Grutter case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that “Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational

In Hopwood v. Texas, Cheryl Hopwood along with three other caucasian law school applicants challenged the affirmative action program at the University of Texas Law School. She claimed that she was denied admission to the law school despite being better qualified than many admitted minority candidates. Hopwood along with Douglas Carvell, Kenneth Elliott, and David Rogers, all had better combined LSAT and grade scores than 36 of the 43 Latinos admitted, and 16 of the 18 blacks admitted (Hentoff 1). Judge Sparks ruled that the University could continue to use the racial preferences which had been the issue in the case. In the ruling, he wrote that it was "regrettable that affirmative action programs are still needed in our society", and that they were still "a necessity" until society overcomes its tradition of institutional racism (Hopwood V. Texas 1). After the four plaintiffs appealed the case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote, "the University of Texas School of Law may not use race as a factor in deciding which applicants to admit in order to achieve a diverse student body, to combat the perceived effects of a hostile environment at the law school, to alleviate the law school's poor reputation in the minority community, or to eliminate any present effects of past discrimination by actors other than the law school"( Hopwood V. Texas 1). The University appealed the decision, but the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review, making the case the law of the land in Louisiana, Mississippi, and

Two more cases that aroused much debate on the issue were the 2003 cases of Gratz vs. Bollinger and Grutter vs. Bollinger, in which two more-than-qualified students applied to the University of Michigan and were denied due to acceptance policies. The two women, Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter, took their cases to the Supreme Court with the plea that the University of Michigan is “treating people differently based on skin color, and that is unconstitutional” (Mears). The university openly stated that they have a point system in their acceptance process in which students receive extra point if they are of minority status. Mary Sue Coleman, the president of the University of Michigan stated, “[W]e

In a CNN article, a girl named Abigail Noel Fisher files a lawsuit against the University of Texas after being rejected her application into the university. She claims that this being a kind of discrimination and that we should have diversity in colleges. The Supreme Court also agrees what she files for presents a race issue. Abigail participated in multiple extra circular activates and volunteer work and scored the top 80% of her class so she should be in U.T. Abigail dreamt and compassionate about this since she was in second grade and wanted to go to the college because to continue a tradition in her family and friends which seems understandable. Although she participated in many activates, she showed to be under the top 10% which U.T accepts

Thomas Madison and Mary Hamilton are two high school seniors that applied to The University of Southern Iowa State, but were denied admission. Madison thinks that the University should consider that fact that he is gay and Hamilton believes that the school is discriminating based on race. Both applicants sue the school because they believe that some factors of the admissions process are unconstitutional.

The landmark Supreme Court cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas have had a tremendous effect on the struggle for equal rights in America. These marker cases have set the precedent for cases dealing with the issue of civil equality for the last 150 years.

In 1994, a new case, Hopwood v. The University of Texas, was ruled on by the circuit court and interpreted in such a manner as to effectively end affirmative action in higher education for the states of Texas and Louisiana. The plaintiffs for the case were four applicants to the law school of The University of Texas, each of whom were denied admission while minority applicants with lower

The 1960s had arrived, and equality in theory was being achieved, but it was still not being practiced in reality. As mentioned earlier in Sweatt v. Painter, various leaders such as Antonio Maceo Smith, Carter Wesley, and John J. Jones sued the University of Texas because of the denial of admission to Texas Law School. The Supreme Court ruled that Sweatt can attend the University of Texas, which meant integration. It was in ways similar to Brown v. Board where they ruled segregated schools were unequal, which led to being unconstitutional.

Products: The clothes are stylish, yet simple and built for comfort. The pieces in the collection were designed to work together, so customers could creatively vary their look from day to day. They were designed to make getting dressed easy, and to be versatile enough to be worn to work and out for the evening. Fisher was adamant about designing clothes for real women and developed forgiving silhouettes that flattered women regardless of their body type. The fluid clothes were designed to take the personality of the wearer.

In 2008, Abigail Fisher, claimed that her Fourteenth Amendment civil rights had been violated by the University of Texas. Abigail Fisher, the plaintiff, believed that race was a discriminatory factor regarding her non-admission to the university. The admission policy of the University of Texas had been developed due to preceding cases and was considered narrowly tailored. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of University of Texas due to affirmative action.

Colleges and Universities are still trying to move beyond race-based admissions. In the case of a young woman who applied to the University of Washington who talks about her home life with her father abusing her mother and her mother abusing drugs. This essay from the high school senior impacted the readers into helping to ban affirmative action from university admissions. In February, Florida joined the growing number of states that struck affirmative action from admissions. California in 1996, voters eliminated race-based admissions policies, and the same year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did the same in Texas in Hopwood vs. State of Texas. The University of Massachusetts Amherst and the University of Virginia have elected to significantly reduce the role of

It was bought against the Topeka, Kansas Board of Education by a father on behalf of his daughter whom he had tried to enroll in an all white school to prevent her from walking a great distance. During the ruling, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the courts decision and below is an excerpt:

Julie Fisher was employed as a surgical nurse at San Pedro Peninsula Hospital(SPPH) along with her husband Cordell Fisher, who was a pediatric dental surgeon. The defendants SPPH, DR. Tischler and DR. Brow. Dr. Tischler is a member of SPPH's medical staff specializing in gynecology and obstetrics. Dr. Tischler controlled Ms. Fisher's employment by giving her direct orders and making recommendations about her performance. Dr. Brow is a member of SPPH's medical staff specializing in pediatrics. From 1981 until November 1982,