Gratz Et Al. V. Bollinger Case Study

The institution of public education has been one of the most controversial establishments in the United States since its inception. More specifically, equality in the conditions and the opportunities it provides has been sought as one of its major goals. There is little doubt that minority ethnic groups have struggled to achieve educational equality, just as they have struggled for equality in other aspects of life. One way that minorities have tried to achieve equality in education is through lobbying for help in college admissions for their respective groups. This social practice has been debated on many grounds, including necessity and

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

In response to the allegations, the University of Michigan asserted that their policy was designed to promote diversity and ensure “unique contributions to the character of the Law School” (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). The University of Michigan maintained that they did not employ racial quotas rather they systemically focused on improving diversity in each entering class. The University associated their policy to Regents of Uni. Cal. v. Bakke (1978) which addressed race in university admission decisions.

Abigail Fisher and Rachel Multer Michalewicz were just two young women from Texas trying to get into their dream school. In 2008 the young women applied at the University of Texas. The two women, both white, filed suit, alleging that the University had discriminated against them on the basis of their race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause being a clause that allows no state to deny any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the law”.

The petitioner Abigail N. Fisher, who is a woman of Caucasian decent, applied to the University of Texas in late 2008 (“Fisher v. University of Texas.”). Since Fisher was not ranked at the top of her class her application was denied (“Fisher v. University of Texas.”). The former University of Texas applicant Abigail N. Fisher believes that the Institutions discriminatory admission policies was the reason she did not get admitted into the school for the incoming freshman class of 2009, even though her application was much better than many of the admitted minority students. Fisher then filed a suit case against the University arguing that the University of Texas admission policy was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states it forbids

The Law School initially placed petitioner on a waiting list, but subsequently rejected her application. Petitioner alleged that respondents discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioner further alleged that her application was rejected because the Law School uses race as a "predominant" factor, giving applicants who belong to certain minority groups "a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups. Petitioner further alleged that her application was rejected because the Law School uses race as a "predominant" factor, giving applicants who belong to certain minority groups "a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups. The outcome of this ruling was the court ruled in favor that someone can be denied admission in preference of a different race that meet the same qualifications. The University of Michigan Law School was conducting highly individualized reviews of each applicant, and the courts determined that race was only one of the many factors they had considered for eligibility of their applicants (Grutter,

Bakke (Respondent), a white applicant to Davis Medical School, California sued the University, alleging his denial of admission on racial grounds was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

In the case, the plaintiff accused UT at Austin of racially discriminating against her in the application and acceptance process. Under the first application procedure that lasted up until 1997, two factors were taken into consideration, the applicant’s performance in

In a CNN article, a girl named Abigail Noel Fisher files a lawsuit against the University of Texas after being rejected her application into the university. She claims that this being a kind of discrimination and that we should have diversity in colleges. The Supreme Court also agrees what she files for presents a race issue. Abigail participated in multiple extra circular activates and volunteer work and scored the top 80% of her class so she should be in U.T. Abigail dreamt and compassionate about this since she was in second grade and wanted to go to the college because to continue a tradition in her family and friends which seems understandable. Although she participated in many activates, she showed to be under the top 10% which U.T accepts

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.

It has been argued that Fisher III neither provides any substantive additions to Equal Protection Clause (EPC) Jurisprudence, nor any guidance to lower courts how to apply Grutter and determine whether a race-based admissions program is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. Danielle Holley-Walker, in her article published in winter of 2014, explores the impact Fisher III has on race-conscious admissions programs, and argues that Fisher III enhances the strict scrutiny analysis, especially when compared to Grutter. Moreover, she argues “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent meaningfully highlights one of the most pernicious flaws in the current Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, which is that strict scrutiny standard encourages universities to make their admissions process opaque instead of transparent and that there are many benefits that flow from having a transparent, race-conscious admissions program.”

Every year, millions of students apply to colleges and universities in the United States. The status of their application, whether they get accepted to or rejected by the school of their dreams, may ultimately be determined by two words: affirmative action. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines affirmative action as an effort to correct past injustices, means to right the wrongs of the past, positive steps to correct past discrimination (Affirmative 1). However, for those exceedingly qualified members of a majority group who do not get accepted while less qualified minority members do, affirmative action begins to insinuate reverse discrimination, the unfair treatment of members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities (Reverse 1). Affirmative action is a topic of contention that has been disputed in the court systems for roughly four decades. It is now time that affirmative action in college admissions be abolished because it erroneously implies that diversity is more imperative than merit and unjustifiably discriminates

One of the most problematic and controversial issues in The United States of America is affirmative action. Affirmative action is a policy of affording minorities certain privileges in order to combat the historical prejudice against them. In an effort to redress the historical injustices faced by African Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities, universities and employers across the nation have taken race into account when admitting students or hiring employees. Abigail Fisher, of Texas, applied for admission into the University of Texas at Austin (UT) and was denied; she sued the public university on the grounds of racial discrimination or reverse racism in the supreme court case Fisher v University of Texas.

FACTS: A Michigan resident was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law school, even though she had a 3.8 GPA and a score of 161 on the LSAT. Barbara Grutter sued the school alleging that they had discriminated against her based on her race, which would be in violation of her constitutional rights. The University of Michigan Law School argued that there is a state interest to not have a “critical mass” of students of a given race; so that minorities do not feel isolated.