Abigail Noel Fisher Case Study

The cases of Gratz/Grutter v. Bollinger are two cases alleging that the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law School discriminated against students who applied for admission because of their race(Tuttle, Kevin).The university of michigan receives a high volume of applicants each year(Tuttle, Kevin).to help the admissions decisions the university has a point system which is out of 100 points(O’Connor).a student that is from an underrepresented group automatically receives 20 points towards their overall score (O’Connor).the issue is Whether the School’s admission policy to automatically grant 20 out of 100 points to students of a minority ethnicity is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution(Boddie, Elise c.).The Bush administration had supported the plaintiffs in both cases, and critics regarded the verdicts as a defeat for its conservative agenda(Boddie, Elise c.).both of these cases are unique and different in there own way(Boddie, Elise c.).

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

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.

Patient Sallie Mae Fisher was released from the hospital last Saturday. This patient is eighty two years old and lives alone as her daughter lives too far away to be helpful. Her medical history includes chronic congestive heart failure (CHF), atrial fibrillation (AF), and hypertension (HTN). She has been hospitalized four times for CHF exacerbation in the last six months. She was discharged from the hospital after being there three day to treat increased dyspnea, an eight pound weight gain, and chest pain. This paper will identify, prioritize, and describe at least four problems with evidence for each problem and identify at least four medical or nursing interventions with rationale for the interventions included.

In 2003, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on a case challenging the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action program, ultimately declaring the scheme unconstitutional. The admission scheme was based generally on a 150 point scale system in which the Office of Admission assigned points based on a number of factors, including high school grades, standardized test scores, high school quality, alumni strength, and leadership; if a student fell within the 100-150 point range, he or she would be admitted to the school. However, an applicant automatically received a bonus of 20 points of the 100 needed to guarantee admission if he or she possessed any one of the following “miscellaneous” factors: membership in an underrepresented racial or ethnic minority (which included African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans), attendance to a predominantly minority or disadvantaged high school, or recruitment for athletics. And yet, even though the Court struck down this scheme by holding it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it did so on the basis that the University of Michigan scheme itself was too broad and thus discriminatory on its face; it did not strike down the notion of affirmative action in any way (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003). In fact, the same day this ruling came down, the Supreme Court issued another ruling that upheld the University of Michigan Law

The case known as Fisher v. University of Texas, was to chosen to be first heard by the Supreme Court in late 2012. It entails a case on affirmative action. Abigail Fisher felt that she had been discriminated against because of her race. She also claimed to have had higher qualifications than her counterparts, and therefore deserved to be admitted into the University of Texas. According to the Washington Post, the suit brought on by Fisher is the first time that the court has revisited affirmative action since its landmark ruling in the 2003

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

She claimed that the reason for this was because of the affirmative action policy that the university had in place. The case gained traction and was taken to the Supreme Court. This also sparked up a national conversation about affirmative action throughout the nation. An article in the New York Times had quotes from some of the Justices stating that it is necessary to have affirmative action that way the classroom can stay diversified (Liptak

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

Groups that are in refutation of Affirmative Action professor Gary Becker, who states “Affirmative Action policies lowers standards of account ability need to push employees or student to perform better.” (Becker) Becker’s meaning behind this argument is that students or employees who are affecting by affirmative action tend to try harder than they should know that they are going to be accepted just because of Affirmative Action policies. Becker say this type of polices eventually hurts more than it helps. Another group supporting refutation of Affirmative Action policies is a student by the name of Abigail Fisher, who accused the University of Texas of not accepting her into one of their school program because of Affirmative Action polices. Fisher argument against the University of Texas was that she had higher test scores than most of the minority applicants that were accepted into the program instead of her. Fisher blamed the University Affirmative Action policies that allowed the school to consider race in its admission process. Fisher then sued the University of Texas because of this and after years of going back and forth a federal court ruled in favor of the University of Texas. The reasoning behind this was that the court believed the University was justified in creating a diverse student body and race simply has to be a factor in the decision process. With both sides having very valid points and arguments Affirmative Action policies promotes diversity and

& 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).

I am all for having diversity in classrooms but giving students that don’t have funding’s a chance before students that worked hard their whole life isn’t fair at all. This quote by Justice Sonia Sotomayor completely speaks my mind about racism and people lower down on the totem pole need to prove to people that they are just as capable as white people. "As I understand their [the university's] position, race is balanced against other issues like socio-economics, the strength of the classes people took. It's never a standalone. So even a white student, I presume, who goes to an entirely black or an entirely Latino [high] school, who becomes class president would get some points because he has or she has proven that they foster or can deal in a diverse environment. That's how I understood their plan; that it's not just giving you a plus because of race, it's combining that with other factors." As racism is much of a problem today, it is hard for colleges to turn down minorities because they will pull that card on them and get the law involved. For example, the court case of Abigail Fisher was brought to the supreme court because she checked the Caucasian box on the admission sheet when she was not actually white. She figured even though her scores weren’t that great, she would get in because she’s white. I realize that white people are more likely to get in to higher up things, but if the minorities would just prove themselves there wouldn’t be a problem. A black student

According to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, affirmative action is defined as "any measure, beyond simple termination of a discriminatory practice, adopted to correct or compensate for past or present discrimination or to prevent discrimination from recurring in the future" (Statement on Affirmative Action, 1977). In the United States affirmative action is mostly associated with education, particularly college admissions. Certain universities and colleges would have a “prominent form of racial preferences” in their application process (Kahlenberg, 2015). According to Richard D. Kahlenberg, he claims colleges are able to limit or end affirmative action by showing how they can diversify without it. Recently, The University of Texas at Austin was challenged with affirmative action by twenty-three year old white female, Abigail Fisher. Fisher claims that she was rejected by the University, yet other students of different minorities managed to get in despite being less qualified. The Fisher case was an attempt to send a strong signal to colleges in

The best method for selecting college applicants is by academic achievements. It is simple, objective, and is the most sensible. It is logical to accept the highest-performing students because they can benefit the most. Affirmative action disrupts this by giving minorities a preference based on their race and not ability. This creates the possibility of a minority being selected over a more qualified “non-minority”, or a student being rejected simply for not being a minority, something that has happened before. A notable instance of this was Fisher v University of Texas, 2013, where student Abigail Fisher sued the school after her application was rejected. Fisher alleged that she was turned down due to the fact that she was white and not a minority. Although the court ruled against her twice, the high-profile case shows how intrusive the issue has become. We should eliminate the need for costly and

Racial discrimination has been a prevalent issue in America since the beginning. After the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s, American society has tried to correct its discriminatory behavior, particularly in the field of education. But some believe this correction to ensure equality of educational opportunity is infringing on the rights of, not minorities, but whites. The Supreme Court Case, Abigail Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin, tried to combat this issue regarding the “discrimination of whites” in college admission. Edward Blum uploaded a video on to the internet summarizing Abigail Fisher’s side of the court case. The video entitled “Abigail Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin” lacks ethos, antagonizes the University of Texas for trying to enlarge their student diversity, and