Abigail N. Fisher Case Study

Affirmative Action. For many Texas high school students, these two words haunt them. Their future, or at least their future at the University of Texas, depends on these words. For Abigail Noel Fisher, a 2008 graduate from Sugar Land, Texas, affirmative action and its race bias policies allegedly ruined her chances of getting into this prestigious state university. Fisher argues that race should not be a factor in college admissions processes, Fisher argues for equality. Equality in respect to race is in our constitution; it surrounds us everyday. In theory, race should be irrelevant in this day and age. Humanity has established that one race is not superior to another, so why should race matter at all in the college admissions process? Why should the University of Texas, or any other university, have that “check your race” box on their applications? Abigail Fisher, and every other person applying to the university, deserves as much opportunity as every other student of any race. When it comes to college, intelligence and character should be key to admission- not the color of the applicant’s skin. The University of Texas’ current affirmative action policy is an unfair college admissions process that the Supreme Court should ban so that admissions are based on intellectual ability in high school, national testing scores, extracurricular activities, and community service; this should be changed so that every person,

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

This case involves the Plaintiff, Kelly Pryor, and the Defendant, National Collegiate Athletic Association, in a complex argument that involves racial discrimination under Title VI and the NCAA adoption of Proposition 16 as well as Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation claims. The court must carefully consider the claims Pryor has brought forth and determine if the discrimination of Proposition 16 was purposefully adopted by adding certain education requirement to ultimately hinder the amount of scholarships awarded to incoming black student athletes. Throughout this case analysis, I will weigh the different evidence presented from both parties and report the court’s reasoning for decisions made in Pryor v.

Background: The University of California used racial quotas to reserve 16/100 seats for "Blacks, Chicanos, Asians, and American Indians." Bakke's scores were much higher than any members of these racial groups who were recently admitted. Bakke's application was rejected twice, so he sued the University. He argued that the University's policy violated the Constitution, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection clause.

In 1997, Texas legislature passed a law that all high school seniors were to be accepted to the University of Texas if they finish in the top ten percent of their class. The University of Texas followed this law but found that their student body was becoming less and diverse. Universities believe that having a diverse student is an important part of learning.

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was at first created to protect against racial discrimination, but the Supreme Court later expanded the clause to also providing equal treatment amongst different races. The clause says, “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Constitution. Art./Amend. XIV, Sec. 1.) A person could not be discriminated upon solely because of his or her race and if the law treated a group of people differently, then a valid reason for the discrepancy of different treatment must exist. Racial minorities, but mainly women, have historically been subjected and made vulnerable to harsh restrictions on activities such as voting, attending college, and working as lawyers. These restrictions, based on stereotypes overlooked the actual capability and potential of each individual woman. For many cases dealing with discrimination of women, the Court looked to another important element of equal protection, which stated that unfair treatment couldn’t be based on immutable distinctions, such as race and gender, because those fixed distinctions are uncontrollable and unrelated to ability. In the case of Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), the Supreme Court was just one vote short of adopting gender as a suspect classification. In United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), women rights supporters were very pleased with the Supreme Court’s ruling and remain

Case Summary: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) involved a white Michigan resident named Barbara Grutter and the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was frustrated by her rejection from the Law School, claiming that the University’s decision was due to a discriminatory admission policy which sought to enroll greater amounts of underrepresented minority students. Grutter believed that white candidates possessed a disadvantage due to this policy and she sued the university. According to Grutter, race was the “predominate factor” in selecting applicants instead of academics. She argued that the policy was unconstitutional and that it violated her 14th Amendment rights.

Abigail Fisher and Rachel Multer Michalewicz were just two young women from Texas trying to get into their dream school. In 2008 the young women applied at the University of Texas. The two women, both white, filed suit, alleging that the University had discriminated against them on the basis of their race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause being a clause that allows no state to deny any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the law”.

So when Abigail Fisher wanted to follow in her father’s footsteps and attend the university she would have to make it on her own, with no special consideration (Nieli, 2013). The state of Texas has enacted the Top Ten Percent Law that gives students graduating in the Top Ten Percent of their high school automatic admission to any Texas public school. Unfortunately, Fisher failed to meet this requirement, and hoped to get admitted through this alternative admission track that takes academic achievement, extracurricular activities, and numerous other things including race and ethnicity. Considering her GPA and SAT scores were higher than most of the students admitted in this fashion, she felt she would easily gain admission this way. When that didn’t happen she felt if she had been a black or Hispanic student and had her same credentials she would have easily been accepted. Fishers’ attorney argued that the University had not been in compliance with the constitutional review. (Nieli, 2013)After losing two appeals, both in the district court and circuit court they appealed to the Supreme Court. The University of Texas gave great transparency in its admission process and gave other universities an outline on how to justify the need for their Affirmative Action Policies. In regards to their policy the University of Texas highlighted the need to deal with students feeling racially isolated or alone. In 2013, the time of Fishers’ litigation African American Students made up less than 5% while Latinos made up about 15% of the student body as compared to Latinos 38% state representation (Hawkins, 2016)Texas’s argued institutions need to leverage the educational benefit of diversity, the need for polices such as affirmative action exists as a result of the lingering effect of discrimination, and that these policies are helping the underrepresented minority groups

A new born baby died after doctors at a Bristol hospital placed a catheter in her body part in a wrong place.

& Martinez, 2003). The Supreme Court ruled that the University of California was wrong in the way they approached a special admissions program that was open only to minority applicants (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). The ruling argued that the special admissions program violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. stated in his opinion on the Bakke case that quotas “would hinder rather than further attainment of genuine diversity” (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003, p. 141). Justice Powell, Jr. also wrote that race is only one part of many factors that an institution can consider in truly achieving a heterogeneous student population (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). By siding with Bakke in this case, the Supreme Court essentially outlawed the use of racial quotas in admissions processes in higher education, yet universities took this as it is okay to use race as a selective factor as long as there are no quotas (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003).

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

To some people, they might ague that Affirmative Action gives certain advantages to certain people and it is unfair. Affirmative Action was started when the University first got started. Students that possesses athletic skills, the children of alumni, the powerful, connections with celebrities, and the famous has higher chances of getting in the University over other people (290). Not only that Affirmative Action was unfair during that time, it left out the minorities not giving them equal opportunity to receive the education they deserved. Therefore, Affirmative Action violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

Recently, a case was brought up to the Supreme Court against North Carolina that claimed racial gerrymandering took place when redistricting for the house elections. An occurrence as such brings the constitution into place because under the fourteenth amendment, no person can be denied equal protection under the law. In this case, equal protection is violated because, according