Affirmative Action Discriminatory In College Admissions

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,

Affirmative action in college admissions continues to be heatedly debated. In 2003, the Supreme Court had ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that diversity was a compelling interest for colleges to use race in admissions. In the amicus brief that the American Sociological Association et al. provided to the Supreme Court, sociological evidence was presented to elucidate the value of affirmative action. Yet in 2006, Proposal 2 was passed in Michigan to ban affirmative action in public education (Levitsky). Based on the information in the amicus brief, the correlation between race and socioeconomic status of the minorities, and the negative effects of banning affirmative action, admissions officers at the University of Michigan should consider

Racial preference has indisputably favored Caucasian males in society. Recently this dynamic has been debated in all aspects of life, including college admission. Racial bias has intruded on the students’ rights to being treated fairly. Admitting students on merit puts the best individuals into the professional environment. A university’s unprejudiced attitude towards race in applicants eliminates biases, empowers universities to harness the full potential of students’ intellect, and gives students an equal chance at admission.

The University of Texas at Austin is a world renown school with an acceptance rate of 40.2% as of 2013. Abigail Fisher, a white woman from Texas, sued the University of Texas for racial discrimination in the university’s admission program. Ms. Fisher lost her district court case and the Fifth Circuit Case three to zero; but the Supreme Court accepted her appeal for another trial. Due to Ms. Fisher not being able to attend The University of Texas, she was accepted into Louisiana State University shortly after. At LSU, she filed the lawsuit against the University of Texas to prohibit the university to use race as a factor in the future admission process.

Yes. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing by a 9-7 vote. ‘it would be difficult for UT to construct an admission policy that more closely resembles the policy approved by the supreme court in Grutter.’ Fifth Circuit claimed that, race was just a factor among factors, and UT didn’t just admit students because of their race, but because of student body diversity enrichment.

The Court’s focus in Fisher III was whether the lower courts applied strict scrutiny in a manner consistent with the holding in Grutter. Justine Kennedy emphasizes the importance of strict scrutiny in evaluating race-conscious admissions programs, for unless an admissions program can withstand the strictest analysis, race cannot be used. Bakke is utilized to shape Justice Kennedy’s analysis of the compelling state interest prong of strict scrutiny; he utilizes Grutter in shaping his discussion of “the narrow tailoring prong of the strict scrutiny analysis.” While a

Arguments against race-sensitive admissions overlap and work in concert with each other. Four main charges encompass many of these seemingly disparate complaints into clear areas of discussion: (1) a moral argument which charges that society should be colorblind; (2) an economic charge that argues race-based policies admit unqualified students, creating a financial burden for institutions; (3) a charge of "social Darwinism" which argues that race-based policies do not allow for normal selection process; and (4) a political charge which questions whether policies effectively service society. In order to establish a position on the issues of race sensitive admissions

In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the court claimed that using affirmative action in admission processes was perfectly legal. As stated by the Supreme Court in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, the racially-based admissions decisions might be valid, however the law in question did not meet the strict scrutiny test since there was no evidence that those discriminated against by Harvard’s admissions policies would have benefitted had the policies not been in place (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke). Therefore, the court did not find the University of California to be in breach of the Constitution. The court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger also approved affirmative action programs in ruling that it was reasonable for universities to put quotas in place in attempt

The concept of race based admission policy is used in colleges to create diversity in campuses, but to some it is another kind of discrimination. According to Stacy Teicher Khadaroo staff writer of “A sticky week for college admissions as affirmative action debate heats up; After a leaked Justice Department document, tensions roil over the use of race at top universities such as Harvard. But many other selective schools may be quietly shifting away from the practice,” top colleges uphold the same commitment to create diversity and using race in admission to accomplish it instead of merit or income. Nonetheless, Department of Justice spokeswomen, Sarah Isgur Flores, is willing to investigate the effects of affirmative action, "The posting

A person has just obtained their dream ACT score, 34, while maintaining outstanding extracurricular activities throughout high school. After applying to the university of their choice, they are informed that they have not been admitted. Crushed and confused, they go on the university’s website only to discover that the university is looking for people with a more diverse racial background. Standing in the way of their acceptance is a defective policy formally known as race-based affirmative action. Informally called affirmative action, it is a combination of adopted policies that construct an advantage to minority groups, giving them more possibilities to succeed in jobs, education, and other aspects of daily life. The whole concept came

In this percentage plan the University gives automatic admission to students who fall within the top 10% of their graduating high school class. In addition to the automatic admission, ineligible applicants who did not fall under the top 10%, will be admitted based on the combination of their Achievement Index Scores and Personal Achievement Index score. The unique matrix used by the admissions board, puts applicants who have a particular AI or PAI score in numerous cells. Once doing so, a stair step is drawn based on the availability in each school. This then determines who will be admitted and who will be denied, and it is an all or nothing method (Resp., 12). This admissions method does not look at race explicitly, as race becomes merely one variable among many other variables. These variables are then combined and result in the PAI scores that are recorded anonymously prior to the matrix being created. In this regard, the Fisher case is significantly different from Grutter as the admissions process is blind, and the applicants become a score on a matrix. Whereas, in Grutter, the admissions board has all of the applicant’s information, including their race while making the decision to admit or deny an applicant. Therefore, I believe that the Fisher case is distinguishable from the Gruttter case when it comes to how the strict scrutiny test is applied. Based on the findings presented, and my knowledge of both of these cases, the University of Texas wins the case as they implemented a method which is devoid of race in the way that it is used in Grutter. In Fisher, race is only one of many factors compiled into one score, basically meaning it has an indirect effect on admissions, in comparison to the direct effect race has on admissions decisions in

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

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) was a monumental decision upholding affirmative action. A 35 year old white man, Allan Bakke applied to the University of California Medical School at Davis, twice, and twice was denied admission. The university held 16 spots under their “special admissions program” for minorities in each entering class in order to promote diversity. Bakke’s scores exceeded those of the minority applicants that were admitted in the two years Bakke’s

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

Since the election of President Barack Obama, many people have adopted the idea that the nation has progressed and there are even some people who trust that it is now time to halt school, housing, and employment affirmative action policies. Sadly though, many people are unaware of the fact that there has been an upsurge in hate crimes and racial profiling. Because of this, there is a chasm between black and white success in schools, career prospects, housing, and quality of health care (Sadler 1140-1141). But in recent years, affirmative action has been questioned. Michigan, Washington, California and Florida have outlawed affirmative action policies, and Colorado and Nebraska have pushed for anti-affirmative efforts (Sadler 1156).