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
Discrimination against race, gender, religion, or other social characteristics is occurring in all parts of the United States almost every day. Unfortunately, the U.S. has a history of extreme case of discrimination, which has evoked controversy and in worse cases, violence. To discourage any more of adverse discernment towards certain individuals, the Federal government has imposed legislation called affirmative action. According to At Issue: Affirmative Action, “Affirmative action is designed to promote access to opportunities in education, employment, housing, and government contracts among certain designated groups, such as women and minorities“ (At Issue). This law is necessary in today’s society in order to maintain equality and
Background: The University of California used racial quotas to reserve 16/100 seats for "Blacks, Chicanos, Asians, and American Indians." Bakke's scores were much higher than any members of these racial groups who were recently admitted. Bakke's application was rejected twice, so he sued the University. He argued that the University's policy violated the Constitution, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection clause.
July 6, 1964: President Lyndon B. Johnson signs The Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination and mentions the use of “affirmative action to overcome the effects of prior discrimination.”
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.
Both sides had major arguments and reasons why they thought their side was right. Regents of the University of California said that their special admissions program helped limit discrimination in our society. Medical schools normally were discriminatory towards minors (by the admission process based of credentials) so this program helped ease that problem. The Regents of the University of California also stated that the program will help poor communities by giving them physicians that will want to go and help out the cause of where they grew up. Regents of the
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
The case of Bakke vs. the University of California was one during a time in which racial segregation was more of a factor in society than it is today. It is important to recognize that because this case was very much based on race.
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.
Newspaper headlines and public forums demand educational reform with growing frequency. Race-sensitive admissions policies are often at the center of these debates. For example, according to the Los Angeles Times on March 21, 2001, the Los Angeles Community College district trustees are scheduled to vote for a resolution to support the University of California’s move to reinstate affirmative action in its admissions policies. This reinstatement has visible student support as seen in the March 15, 2001 rallies at the UC Regent’s meeting in which over 1,000 supporters of affirmative action came out to voice their opinion. This activity closely follows two other perceived victories for affirmative action proponents when two recent court
Brown v Board of Education (Brown) (1954) marked a historic victory for civil rights in the United States. Chief Justice Warren declared the “Separate but Equal” doctrine unconstitutional, thereby moving the nation one step closer to a more integrated society. However, despite Brown’s monumental win for racial equality, it is undoubtedly obvious that the Court overstepped its boundaries in trying to push for progress. In Brown, the Court was unjustified in its actions to overrule Plessy v Ferguson (Plessy) (1896) and violated its constitutional limit in order to promote racial integration in public education.
When addressing legal issues of diversity in the modern day era, one main topic is brought to discussion, affirmative action. It was put into place by the federal government in the 1960’s and was initially developed to close the gap in relation to the privileged majority and the unprivileged minority in America (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). While it has been controversial since its origin, it remains controversial as critics argue it tries to equalize the impact of so many
“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