Abigail Fisher's Case Summary

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

Many colleges have come across the topic of diversity one way or another. In 2003, Abigail Fisher an applicant at the University of Texas, sued the college for failing to acknowledge her right to equal protection under the constitution. In her argument she stated that she felt the college had racially profiled her, which led to the dismissal of her application during the admission process. In the end the supreme court ruled in the favor of the college concluding the rights of Fisher had not been violated (Ortiz 714). This is an example of how diversity has emerged problematically within different systems. The ongoing

In the case, the plaintiff accused UT at Austin of racially discriminating against her in the application and acceptance process. Under the first application procedure that lasted up until 1997, two factors were taken into consideration, the applicant’s performance in

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

FACTS: A Michigan resident was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law school, even though she had a 3.8 GPA and a score of 161 on the LSAT. Barbara Grutter sued the school alleging that they had discriminated against her based on her race, which would be in violation of her constitutional rights. The University of Michigan Law School argued that there is a state interest to not have a “critical mass” of students of a given race; so that minorities do not feel isolated.

Robert D. Putnam et. al. and Abigail Thernstrom et. al. address affirmative action policies at colleges and universities as a broader social issue than just an individual getting into the university in their amicus curiae briefs. Thernstrom submitted her amici brief in favor of the petitioner, Abigail N. Fisher et. al., and Putnam submits his amici brief in favor of the respondents, The University of Texas et. al. The University of Texas chose not to admit Ms. Fisher, who was then a high school student. Ms. Fisher then sued the University, arguing that the use of race in applications and admission decisions to and of the University were discriminatory under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. These amici briefs were submitted

improved if these students are to perform at the top levels at the University of Texas. Texas now forces public schools to keep academic achievement records by race, and penalizes schools that allow black and Latino children to fall behind.

Bakke (1978), Allan Bakke, a white applicant who was denied admission twice by UC Davis School of Medicine, alleged that the university admitted students with lower GPAs and MCAT scores than him. Protesting on the streets was not effective enough as an approach as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke in a 5-4 vote. Racial “quotas”, or “goals” as minorities like to call them, were ruled unconstitutional; however, a school’s use of “affirmative action” to enroll more minorities was constitutional in certain cases. Even though affirmative action is supposed to help minorities equally, white women are the main beneficiaries. In fact, certain studies and data show that white women in particular benefit disproportionately. In 2013, Fisher v. University of Texas mirrors Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), in which Abigail Fisher, then 23, claimed that Texas University was accepting people who didn’t have the qualifications, further stating that she was denied solely because of her race. The truth was that affirmative action was not her problem; Fisher’s grades simply weren’t good enough. The acceptance rate at UT is 40% and even lower for in-state students outside of the top 10%. The chances of her being accepted were close to none, regardless of race. Although, Fisher was rejected by UT, she still had an advantage regarding both higher education and job opportunities, as anyone does when born with privilege. According to a decade old study, women

In Fisher V. University of Texas (2013), the Court finally established how affirmative action and racially-based university admission policies should be legally reviewed. Prior to this case, courts often purported how specific policies were constitutionally permissible or not, but they never fully established how courts should review these policies in the first place. In Gratz, the Court determined quota systems for different racial or ethnic identities is never acceptable under the Equal Protection Clause, while in Grutter the court ruled that utilizing race as a factor in a holistic process is acceptable. However, the court in Fisher concretely confirmed in what vein should racially-affected admission policy be judged in terms of constitutionality. Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion defined the landscape in which that admissions policy should be reviewed, and placed a significantly higher burden on universities to prove the constitutionality of their policy, forcing universities to invest more in research into diversity in their campus and to reshape the way they frame diversity

Like the discussion question stated, Texas has been placed at the center of the Affirmative Action debate with the Fishes vs the university of Texas (2013) case, because first fisher is white. Fisher's body of evidence against the University of Texas is that the Affirmative Action confirmation arrangement has a different effect on the off chance that you are white you will probably be denied affirmation. The confirmation includes accumulation of measurements used to decide affirmation, demonstrating that Fisher scored higher on the measurements than numerous who were conceded. Fisher v. College of Texas is a case at present before the United States Supreme Court concerning the governmental policy regarding minorities in society affirmations

When she applied to UT, Fisher was not in the top 10% of her school, but she still believed she should be accepted because of her high grades and various extracurriculars. However, they turned her down. Fisher sued the University of Texas. She believed she was not admitted because she was white. She wanted a law making it illegal for UT to include race in admissions decisions. Her case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, but she ended up losing and decided to attend Louisiana State University instead of UT.

Issue: Did the University of Michigan violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

University of Texas(UT). In this Supreme Court case, Abigail Fisher, a white student who accused UT of denying her entrance into the school because of her race. The universities race-conscious admissions policy was then put into question by Fisher and her lawyers after suing the university for discrimination. However, the use of a race-conscious admissions policy is used by UT to sort applicants that do not automatically get in because of their top ten percent ranking in high school. Fisher claimed that the use of race by UT in admission decisions violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Her allegations towards the university come from the fact that she was not in the top ten percent of her school so she was left to compete with other non-top ten percent in-state applicants. In the end, the court decided that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does, in fact, permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions

In the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke [1978], Allan Bakke, a white male who applied to the University of California at Davis, filed suit after being rejected twice despite that his grade point average, MCAT scores, and benchmark scores were higher than those of all the other minority applicants who were accepted. Bakke argued that the special admissions program violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he wasn’t accepted due to his race. It is unfair that Bakke scored higher than every minority applicant and proved his qualification but was denied an opportunity. The university argued that their special admissions system was designed to combat discrimination of minorities in medical school admissions. The university claimed that their program brought ethnic and racial diversity to their student body and increased the number of physicians in underserved communities. The Superior Court of Yolo County and Supreme Court of California both ruled that the special admissions program was unconstitutional. The Regents of the University of California

In 1973, Bakke received a score of 468 out of 500, but was not accepted, because he had applied late in the year due to his wife's mother's serious illness, and by this time of the year, only applicants with scores 470 or higher were accepted. There were, however, four special-admissions slots remaining, but Bakke was ineligible for these. The special admissions program at Davis was reserved for applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds, and these applicants, who were required to be from a racial minority group, were evaluated separately from the other regular-admissions applicants. In both years that he applied, Bakke's GPA was close to the average for regular admittees, but significantly higher than that of the special admittees. His MCAT scores were well above both averages. Bakke was angered but decided to apply again in 1974. He was again rejected. Bakke then sued the medical school. He claimed that the special admissions program was an unfair racial quota, a violation of the 14th amendment. In its decision on the case of Allan Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that racial quotas are unconstitutional, but that race can still be used as a factor in admissions. In the Supreme Court’s decision, Justice Marshall, the only justice on the Supreme Court who was of a racial minority group, stated that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified directly after the Civil War,