College Admissions Case Paper

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,

Not only does Affirmative action prevent discrimination, but also this legislation implemented by the national government can diversify and improve the overall well being of businesses and schools. Sometimes individuals of a minority group are rejected for a position or declined acceptance to a university not because they are inept, but due to outdated stereotypical assumptions that cause an employer or official to reconsider that person. The ideas behind affirmative action prevent unfair labeling from those whose

Stanford students David Sacks and Peter Thiel describe how, “rather than fostering harmony and integration, preferences have divided the campus… if preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.” The bias present in Affirmative Action does not mend what it was originally put in place to fix, discrimination of the disadvantaged. Instead, it misplaces students who are qualified. The unfavorable system of preferential admission disregards a more promising system of admittance.

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

This case shows how men and women of all races can be affected by the two headed monster called affirmative action. Affirmative action was established so that members of society such women, minorities or those with handicaps would be guaranteed an honest opportunity to achieve goals, professions or pursue higher education without discrimination. However, when a person’s sex, nationality, social settings and race compete against one another even those the act is intended to protect become

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

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.

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

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 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

Race issues in the United States have plagued our country ever since our inception as a nation. Racism has fueled division, rioting, feuding, debate, and worst of all Civil War. Race issues have altered the way people work and the jobs that they are hired for. Race has also been a contributor to the rate for which one is paid. Race has also contributed to policies that support Law enforcement and or minorities. Some of these cases were; Brown vs. Board of Education (1954), the Court prohibited racial segregation in public schools. Loving vs. Virginia (1967), this decision holds that state laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage are unconstitutional. Another example, the Court found that a city school failure to provide English language instruction to students of Chinese ancestry to be considered unlawful discrimination in Lau vs. Nichols (1973). The University of California Regents vs. Bakke (1978), the Court decides that a public university may take race into account as a factor in admissions decisions. The decision holds that a state denies an African-American defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposefully excluded was in Batson vs. Kentucky (1986). Then a final example, Grutter vs. Bollinger (2003), In this case, the Court finds that a law school 's limited "affirmative action" use of race in admissions is constitutional. Because of racism we have also seen where we now have sub cultures in secret

The Bakke Vs. The Regents of University of California case is one of the most well known supreme court cases in America dealing with the topic of affirmative action. Stated by Eastland, “affirmative action policies are those in which an institution or organization actively engages in efforts to improve opportunities for historically excluded groups in American society” (10). In 1978, the plaintiff Bakke filed a suit against the University of California, claiming that his rejection from the school was a result of racial discrimination and that it violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, and the California Constitution (Posner 171). The U.S Supreme court ruled that affirmative action was constitutional, but not the use of racial quotas. The significance of this case is that it dealt directly with two major theories prevalent to minorities and race: Their assimilation into the university setting using affirmative action, and also the systemic racism that these groups faced as well. More specifically however, the Bakke Vs. the Regents of University of California case can be explained by systemic racism more so than assimilation, because systemic racism was and still is in effect in these educational institutions. Even with the inclusion of programs such as affirmative action that are supposed to combat systemic racism and simplify assimilation, American institutions were built upon ideological processes that

There are two recent lawsuits from 2003 that brought to the forefront college admissions using race; these include Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger (Bowman, 2013). Both cases involve the University of Michigan. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the court sided with the university stating that their admissions office can continue to use race-based initiatives in fostering an education benefit to the students (Bowman, 2013).

This inequality and unnecessary act called racism within many school systems can be dated back to 1896 to the Plessy V. Ferguson case which resulted in “separate facilities for education” and an “equal education” (Campbell). This case is what provided us with the term “separate but equal”, this meant that white and black children had to attend separate schools but would supposedly get an equal education. Another case addressing racism in education is the Cumming V. Richmond case in 1899. This case involved three black families who petitioned the court to allow their children to finish their high school education at a white high school, due to the closing of the local black high school which would integrate African Americans and whites under one facility (Campbell). Racial segregation and its unfairness even continued into the 1950’s with the Sweatt V. Painter case involving an African American, Homas Sweatt, who was being denied access to the University of Texas Law School because he was black (Campbell). All of this unfair treatment of separate but equal education continued until 1954 when one of the most popular and familiar cases to all of us occurred, “Brown V. Board of Education”. In this case a young girl from Kansas had to walk 21 blocks to the closet black only school when a

“The Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments tomorrow in Fisher v. University of Texas, a constitutional challenge to race-conscious admission policies at colleges and universities.” (Kerby, Sophia). In the event that the Court bars the utilization of race in inductions, it will eradicate 50 years of advancement and debilitate colleges' endeavors to make school facilities more various and comprehensive. It will make