Ms. Fisher Case Summary

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.

Fisher’s weakest argument was that racial considerations were no longer necessary because the university had already achieved its critical mass; her argument would have been stronger if she asked the school to explain the differences between critical mass and quota. The Defendants justified their admissions process by arguing that their use of race was “narrowly tailored” to achieve a diverse student population, and their racial acknowledgement is “not about quotas or targets, but about its focus upon individuals” (Fisher v. University of Texas). However, the school never explained the difference between “critical mass” and

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

In the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) case, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, tried applying to medical school twice and was denied, even though his GPA, and test scores were better than others who were recently admitted. According to the court, they believed that “no applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as measured by standards applied without regard to race”. Because of this, the shut down the system that discriminated against other races. In the Grutter case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that “Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational

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 University of Texas (UT) understood the importance of diversity; therefore, tried numerous race-neutral strategies to get minorities into their school. Sadly, Texas suffered from segregation at this time (1993), so not many minorities were going to UT. In consequence, Texas legislature passed a race-neutral system (1997) where the top 10% of a high school graduating class would be automatically admitted into UT. Even with the top 10% rule, Studies showed that minorities’, stayed the same and even decreased, due to still segregated public high schools. UT held discussions and meetings to find ways to increase minorities population in their institution. Finally, UT passed a system called holistic review; allowed students who didn’t graduate in the top 10% of the class to have a chance of admission. The system included; an Academic Index (AI), and a Personal Achievement Index (PAI). An applicant’s PAI score is based on two

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.

As tensions surrounding race-sensitive admissions continue to grow, proponents of eliminating race-based policies are gaining momentum. A conservative political climate, as seen in the mandates for race neutrality in California and Washington and a recent court decision (Hopwood v. State of Texas), which significantly limits the use of race as criteria for admissions in three states, fuel this charge. Although race sensitive admissions policies are still widely used, a vocal opposition has destabilized the foundation on which these practices are based (Tierney, 1997).

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.

There was a case called Fisher v. University of Texas that concerned the application process of incoming college freshmen. A young lady named Abigail Fisher believed that the university declined her acceptance to the school because of her race. This brought up a decision made by the Supreme Court. They believed that keeping diversity in the university is more essential than the equality of the applicant's application.

In this particular case I find the matter of Fisher v. Texas case I find that the University of Texas should not be able to continue on with their policy. Even though Abigail Fisher applied and was not apart of the top 10 percent of her class, she was still a very competitive applicant. Considering the fact that she was ranked 82 out of her senior class 674 she was still at the top 12 percent of her class. Her application surplused most of the other minority students admitted in the second round of admittance. Abigail Fisher's should have been considered a contender as part of the University of Texas’s freshman class of 2009. She believes she was well prepared and would be able to succeed at the University.

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

Chancellor Block proposed the Bruin Diversity Plan with the objective of promoting a diverse student body. His mission with this plan would be; 1) to reduce the historical deficit of traditionally disfavored minority groups (Latinx, African Americans, and Native Americans), 2) to counter the effects of societal discrimination, 3) to increase the number of professionals in currently underserved communities, and 4) to acquire the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. In order to achieve these goals he plans to use a point system which awards applicants points based on 7 categories. These categories vary in potential points accorded,