Admission On Racial Grounds Of The United States Constitution

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

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.

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.

In the years since, interpretations of these laws by the U.S. Supreme Court has defined how affirmative action policies are to be implemented. The Court has held that affirmative action policies are Constitutional wherever it can be shown that ""¦ there has been a clear history of racial discrimination" (United Press International). In 1978, the Court ruling in Regents of University of California v. Bakke defined the concept of 'reverse discrimination' by holding that slots for medical school admissions could not be set aside for minorities, because it could result in admitting less qualified candidates based on racial quotas. In 2003, in Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court defined the concept of 'individualized consideration' when it declared that an undergraduate affirmative action policy at the University of Michigan was unconstitutional because it focused on the race of applicants rather than their

Opinion: The court ruled that the University of California's policy was unconstitutional. They argued that a state is permitted to use race as a factor, however

In 1996, the Federal Court had ruled that race could not be used as a way to determine admission to college. This case was known as Hopwood v. Texas. Hopwood claimed

Once the applicants AI and PAI scores are received by the officers of admission for each of the individual schools within the university these officers then determine the minimum score for admission for that freshman class. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-981_4g15.pdf, P5). It is only at this point of the application process any points for race are awarded, but this information is only known by the admission officers. Once each applicant receives their final score ,which may include bonus points based on the applicant’s race, all applicants with a score above the established minimum admission score are then accepted a students at the

There have been many cases before the United States Supreme Court similar to Mary Hamilton’s, including one that is currently pending. In an ongoing case, Fisher v. University of Texas (2012), Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian female, filed a lawsuit against the University because she was denied admission. Fisher argued that the University was discriminating in its selections based on race. The University argued that the factor of race in the admissions process was solely in the interest of promoting educational diversity. If the admissions of a school call for measures to be taken to ensure diversity, then the policies in place must be reviewed under a standard of strict scrutiny to determine if they are precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest (oyez.org). In Fisher v. University of Texas, the examination of strict scrutiny was not sufficiently conducted and is going to be argued once more on December 9, 2015. In this situation, using the factor of race in an admissions process is

During 1978, Alan Bakke was denied acceptance into the Medical School at the University of California. Bakke had a higher grade point average and higher test scores than other students who got accepted. Under the circumstances, Bakke stated he was denied acceptance because of his race. Not only did Bakke get denied because of his race, was a white male. Immediately he noticed and took the case to court. The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution stated Bakkes rights being the Equal Protection Clause. (Bakke v. University of California)

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

Plaintiff – “The plaintiff is defending a nineteen-year-old Latino male who was admitted to UMCP in the fall of 1989. As an applicant to UMCP, claimant had an accomplished scholastic record: his Scholastic Aptitude Test score was 1340, out of a possible 1600; his grade point average as calculated by his high school was over 4.0 (as calculated by UMCP, his grade point average was 3.56); and he actively participated in several extracurricular activities.” (Podberesky v. Kirwan, 956F. 2d-52- court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1992, 1992) Because of his academic pedigree, the Hispanic male wants to be considered for admittance as well as university scholarships. The scholarship that he would like to be considered for is for African American students until it was revised to include minority students.

The school then appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that the state may consider race as a factor for admittance for diversity, but only if other circumstances are

Having done so it would still need to be narrowly tailored so as not to unduly injure any associated groups or individuals. Powell determined that attaining a diverse student body in an institution of higher education was a compelling state interest. In order to be narrowly tailored to this interest, the institution should use race as a "plus" factor. The quota system that the University of California applied set aside positions for minority students and focused on having a diverse statistical surface rather than attaining actual diverse backgrounds. Rather, as was done at Harvard, it was expected that all students should be considered together and race used as a bonus for minorities that would help account for the special perspective such students could bring to the campus (Schauer 589-597). While Powell's outline for programs had plenty of dissenters, none of them ever made it to a prominent position in the court system and so, since 1978, the rules of Bakke have been the proverbial law of the land. That is, until recently.

& 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).