Case Study: Fisher V. University Of Texas

Following the termination of the Colorado State University women’s varsity softball team on June 1, 1992; plaintiffs sought reinstatement on the basis of a Title IX violation ("Roberts v. Colorado State University, 814 F. Supp. 1507 (D. Colo. 1993) :: Justia," 1993). The girls found terminating their sports team to be unjust. The plaintiffs argued financial difficulties and lack of participation and support for the boy’s baseball team did not warrant termination of the softball program. They also argued getting recruited to play Division I level softball afforded them a better chance at improving their future. Most girls had a substantial amount of scholarship money that helped them afford college ("Roberts v. Colorado State University, 814

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.

Recently the Supreme Court made a ruling that gave schools across the country a higher standard to abide by when using affirmative action when making admission decisions. This case was brought to attention by Abigail Fisher, a white women rejected by the University of Texas. The verdict was a tame one and ruled in favor of Fisher with admissions requiring ““no workable race-neutral alternatives” when a student’s acceptance status is determined. This avoided much debate compared to the capacity the Court has for changing the nation.

The first case that we will glimpse into is the case of Grutter versus Bolllinger. The case is centered around the idea of diversity in the form of race is a justifiable factor in the admission to a state law school. Barbra Grutter argued that the University of Michigan Law School was breaking the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution as well as the Civil Rights Act. Grutter hassled with the fact the minority students with the same credentials assumed a greater chance of admittance to the law school. Furthermore, the text goes on the explain one of the statement s manufactured by the prestigious law school, “Effective participation by members of all racial ethnic groups in the civic life of our Nation is essential if the dream of one Nation, indivisible, is to be realized.” (Rosenbloom) The university was not shy in explaining their concerns in the admission process.

One of the most recent Supreme Court cases before Fisher was Grutter v. Bollinger. In this particular case, a white student sued the university law school for violating his equal protection rights, by way of the law school’s race-conscious affirmative action plan within admissions. After the justices reviewed the law school’s plan, the plan was found to not create an unnecessary burden upon someone not of an underrepresented race. The law school’s affirmative action plan, first

The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case was based around race and how it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a landmark case because it did not only show that minorities are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment but majorities as well. The ruling on this case also allowed institutions to use affirmative action in favor with other factors to a person’s advantage. Any government funded institution can use affirmative action such as employment or admission to a

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

Notice Concerning the Supreme Court’s Decision in Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013)

Fisher v. UT-Austin is a case in which the University Of Texas was trying to make their student population more diverse. They implemented a program in which they would include ‘special characteristics’ to admit the last twenty-five percent of its students, as the first seventy-five percent was already admitted because they were in the top ten percent of their graduating class within the state of Texas. For the last twenty-five percent of students the admissions process was broken down into hard data and soft data. The hard data comprising of SAT scores and high school grades, amongst other things. While the soft data took into account a review of applicants personal essays, leadership skills or community service. But it also included a special

The purpose of this article is to first understand the policies related to racial diversity. From that point, it analyzes the possibilities to restructure these campus policies to incorporate Asian Americans as an equity manner. Different experiences for Asian Americans in higher education through the years are interesting as a diversity point of view. Asian Americans students have access to financial aid and other social service during their staying in the United States. In addition, they also face several limitations to these services that make many investigators as well as people related to education to misunderstand the range of Asian American students’ experiences. Participation and perceptions from these students were critical to shape and give a specific pattern to current practices, and policies will be benefit for both

Ever since I began my undergraduate education, I have personally observed and benefited from the diversity of my peers. Growing up, diversity was essentially absent from my life. My hometown community is a congregation of white middle class Americans working in mostly white collar careers. I remember coming to Iowa and being blown away with the knowledge, perspective, and new understandings I gained from every interaction with someone who was unlike myself. In the past three and half year, conversations with international students have led to new friends from other countries; exposure to the different upbringing people experience has made me more aware of the benefits diversity offers. I would never have been able to accomplish the milestones I have without having the opportunity to flourish in such a diverse environment. I have complete confidence that I bring new perspectives and will contribute to immensely to the already diverse environment at the University of Minnesota.

For most of the American Public, Asians are known to be smart and intelligent. When it comes to college admissions, it is very tough. “If you are Asian, your chances of getting into the most selective colleges and universities will almost certainly be lower than if you are white” (Chen). Asians have been discriminated against throughout the process of applying for a college. Asians generally have a unique disadvantage while putting effort towards their college applications. Michael Wang, a student from California who was rejected by six of the seven Ivy League Colleges. “I asked: what more could I have done to get into your college? Was it based on race, or what was it based on?” (Wang). It is also said that Asians who apply for a college must score 140 points higher on the SATs than white applicants to benefit themselves

In our country, every citizen regardless of their race and ethnicity has the right to education. However, certain institutions and people still consider race a criteria or barrier, when considering admission of minorities into colleges and universities. The most recent issue that involved racial discrimination in higher education, was the remarks made by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia verbally discriminated against African-American students during the case of Fisher vs. Texas, in which he stated,