Fisher II Case Study

Issue- Can race diversity be taken into account when deciding admissions to a public University? Previous History- Grutter believed that the University was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and of the Civil Rights Act.

In 1997, a legislation was passed in Texas, requiring all high school seniors who ranked in the top 10% of their classes to be admitted to the school. Fast forwarding to 2008, both Plaintiffs Abigail Noel Fisher and Rachel Multer Michalewicz applied to the University of Texas at Austin, but where denied. They believed that they were denied due to the fact that they were white. In 2009, United States District Court judge Sam Sparks upheld the University's policy, finding that it meets the standards laid out in Grutter v. Bollinger.[8]

Fisher, but they held the the Court of Appeals did not hold the University’s admission policies to a standard of strict scrutiny so the judgement was incorrect. In previous judicial precedent in cases dealing with minority admissions, the Court has held that they are reviewable under the fourteenth amendment, these such cases must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny to determine whether the policies are precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. If the policy does not meet this standard, then race can not be considered in any admissions process. The Court stated the it was the job of the reviewing court to verify that the University policy in question was necessary to achieve a more diverse student body and the any race-neutral alternative would not achieve the same level of diversity. The Supreme Court said the lower courts did not conduct a sufficient strict scrutiny examination in this case.

The U.S. Supreme Court Case Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke was officially decided June 28, 1978. The case addressed the issue of use of affirmative action in university admissions processes. Affirmative action, also referred to as positive discrimination, was a result of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, and was intended to ensure equal entry to educational institutions or employment entities to certain groups that “have historically suffered invidious discrimination” (Janda et al., 477). However, sometimes this method causes discrimination of other groups, through establishment of racial quotas. University of California employed the process of affirmative action and instituted racial quotas in its admissions

Because there are two cases involved, there are two different legal questions that we must answer. First, we were to answer whether The Asian Society’s and its members Equal Protection rights were abridged upon by them being denied the benefits of the other minorities that attend West Central Dixie State University. Secondly, we were to answer the question brought to the court by The Sons of the Confederacy: Is the policy of positive segregation implemented by the university unconstitutional based on the rights guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection clause. We agree with the lower Court’s ruling in the case of The Asian Society that the policy itself it not unconstitutional, but that it does violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the compelling interest of the university is not narrowly-tailored enough. It should include all minorities not just some for the policy of positive segregation to fulfill its purpose of multiculturalism and diversity.

The second case filed against the University of Michigan is Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). The suit was filed by non-minority applicants who alleged the university for using race as the prevailing factor in admitting students and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI and Section 1981 (Green, 2004, p. 144). In their defense, the University of Michigan argued that the university seeks to ensure their ability to make unique contributions to the character of the student body by enrolling a “meaningful number” of underrepresented minority students (Green, 2004, p. 147). In contrast to the Gratz case, the district court did not follow Justice Powell’s rationale in the Bakke case and the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

Katznelson’s argument that affirmative action policies were enacted with purposeful, deliberate discrimination is convincing. Namely, he considers the historical context that would have shaped Americans at the time and swayed their opinions. For example, Katznelson references the Civil War and the end of slavery, and how these events shaped the attitudes of key players like the Southern Democrats, which would then result in the faulty policies that perpetuated affirmative action’s favoritism of whites. His evidence is sufficient as well. Katznelson highlights the trend of Southern Democrats interfering in affirmative action policies and the footholds they had in specific acts.

In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that a university 's use of racial "quotas" in its admissions process was unconstitutional, but a school 's use of "affirmative action" to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances. " The college was asked to at least consider blacks in the admittance of college and they were asked to not use quotas in the admission

There are two routes to addressing racial discrimination under the law, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. These routes both intend to eliminate the threat of racial discrimination, but do so through different means and criteria. The 14th Amendment provides equal protection under the law in order to “prevent official conduct discriminating on the basis of race” (Han, pg. 63), but does not explicitly define discrimination. Claims brought under the 14th amendment apply specifically to public institutions and must include evidence of both malicious intent and the discriminatory effects that resulted partially ‘because of’ this intent (Han, pg. 64). Title VII acts as a supplement to the 14th Amendment by using statutory law to prohibit overt discrimination or business practices with discriminatory effects (Tara, Study Group, 2/13/17).

Public colleges and universities in the United States use a variety of factors to determine which students will be accepted. Universities often want a student body with diverse academic interests, talents, and backgrounds. They consider factors such as applicants’ grades, standardized test scores, community service, athletic or musical ability, and geographic location. Sometimes, universities also consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity. This case is about whether the University of Texas-Austin’s admissions policies violate the Fourteenth Amendment and its guarantee of equal protection.

Race preferences in college admissions are mandated by the government. Certain race quotes must be met, or federal funding is reduced. The trend of government mandated quotas does not end there. We now are starting to see forced diversity quota hires/admissions with LGBT persons. In Canada compelled speech is forcibly enforced, so that one must call people by their preferred pronouns, even if they are biologically incorrect.

Ira Katznelson is the author of When Affirmative Action Was White, a historical analysis of the history of affirmative action and racial inequality in the United States of America. Katznelson takes a definitive approach to the history of legislation and inequalities and prepares the reader initially with his title. Katznelson’s argumentative position and approach to the title of his book makes the reader question about affirmative action for white Americans, but in reality what Katznelson means by his title, When Affirmative Action Was White, is more based on the social programs and federal grant opportunities that were created and provided to Americans during the Roosevelt and Truman administration. Katznelson argument encompasses historical

At least four Supreme Court justices believe that affirmative action is unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts has said that “the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”. This viewpoint offers no differentiation between “race consciousness” and “racism”, but is a quite common opinion. This sort of viewpoint is what may drive America towards class-based rather than race-based affirmative action. Because of the disparities in income and wealth, minorities are as likely as whites to benefit under a class-based policy.

As far as morality and justice are concerned, if a school or business or government declines to practice affirmative action, that’s okay” – says the

Throughout many of the affirmative action legal cases, one of the main arguments from proponents is that it is necessary in order to right the wrongs of past racial discrimination. Some say that affirmative action is justified because even though white applicants may be more qualified, this is only because they did not face the same hardships as their minority counterparts (Rachels, Ethics, 1973).  Many argue if we do not integrate disadvantaged minorities into mainstream social institutions, they will continue to suffer the discrimination that has plagued our country for centuries and that this is detrimental to not only the minorities but also society as a whole (Anderson, 2002, 1270–71). However, the debate has recently shifted to the benefits of diversity in the classroom which the Supreme Court has affirmed as being a positive thing