Supreme Court Case: Abigail Fisher V. University Of Texas

Though in Grutter v. Bollinger we deal with the 14th amendment of the Equal Protection Clause and racial classifications too, the way race is used is slightly differs. In this particular case, the court had to decide whether the use of race at the Univeristy of Michigan Law School during the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Barbara Grutter, a Caucasian applicant, applied to the University of Michigan in 1996 with a 3.8 GPA and a score of 161 on her LSAT. Grutter was placed on the waitlist, but was subsequently denied admission to the school. Grutter claims that she was only denied because of her race, as the University uses race as a factor in the admission process.

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]

The California Supreme Court ruled in agreement with Bakke that the quota system was unconstitutional, through interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause: “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” (US Const.). UC Davis later appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, who officially published their decision in 1978: 5-4. The Supreme Court ruled that UC Davis discontinue its racial quota program, but also approved of affirmative action in some cases “in education that use race as a plus factor” (Janda et al., 480). The Supreme Court published 6 opinions with Justice Powell’s being the controlling opinion. The two main points of Justice Powell’s opinion were that although achieving a diverse student body is a valid reason to justify use of race in admissions decisions, the special admission program at UC Davis was unnecessary to achieve that goal and that Allen Bakke must be admitted to the UC Davis Medical School because the university could not prove he would have been denied admission without existence of the special admissions program (Cornell

UT also did not show that their process (for how students were admitted) was necessary. 2. Merits/elements of Fisher v. UT-Austin Respondent University of Texas believes that their review about students is necessary as confirmed with the Fifth’s Circuit Court’s ruling. UT believes that race needs to be considered in the application process. UT’s core beliefs are boosting minority enrollment and creating a more diverse student body.

Notаbly absent from the opinion, as it was in Plessy, is any citаtion to a Supreme Court cаse that considered whether the prаctice of segregating schools was a violation of the Fourteenth Аmendment. It was an open question for the Court. The Court аdmitted that the precedent to which it cited involved discriminаtion between whites and blacks rаther thаn other rаces. However, the Court found no аppreciable difference here—"the decision is within the discretion of the state in regulating its public schools, and does not conflict with the Fourteenth Аmendment."

The case was sent to The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and from there the appell was sent to the United States Supreme court. The documentary “A Class Apart” tells how the Mexican American people were able to fight De Jure discrimination with the Hernandez .vs. Texas case.

With the help of Edward Blum, her case was taken to the nation’s highest court in 2013. In 2003, The University of Texas Austin, said that race would become a factor in admission forms. That same year, The University of Texas had the highest race of diverse student, mostly Black and Hispanic. So the question started to rise, “Was Fisher really rejected because of being

Fisher v. Texas “Universities all over the country are breathing a sigh of relief,” Sherrilyn Ifill ("Fisher v. University of Texas”). The final decision of the court case Fisher v. Texas, ruled against student Abigail Fisher; rejecting her opinion that colleges taking in consideration of race as a factor of acceptances is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment ("Fisher v University of Texas Syllabus”). This means that, when deciding among a pool of qualified applicants, a university can consider an applicant’s race, along with his or her test scores, grades, such things as extracurricular activities, athletic or musical ability, and special achievements outside school. Miss Fisher filed a suit after being outraged that she was declined by the color of her skin ("Fisher v. University of Texas”).

The University of Texas is a prime example of inner workings of government institutions. This represents U.S. Political culture in many ways. No one wants to take the blame. Abigail Fisher is one of many students who have been denied, but she did not take no for an answer. Justice Elena Kagan worked on this issue while she was a solicitor general under Obama but removed herself from the case.

Alan took the school to court saying that he should be able to take a spot, and that it was wrong to reject someone with good grades just because of reserving spots for minorities. Bakke fought with the school to get a spot, the court then took the action: "The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of his equal protection claim declaring that the admissions program was unlawful and enjoined the School from considering the race of an applicant. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part" (Casebriefs). His case was later approved, and he received a spot in the

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

In this case, the court allowed segregation as long as the services provided were equal which meant that separation of students according to their race in schools was okay. This was accepted in many states despite the fact that the Fourteenth

Introduction The case of Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, and centers on the University of North Carolina's use of race in its admissions policies. The petitioner, Students for Fair Admissions, have brought claims alleging that the university's use of race discriminates against Asian American applicants in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights statutes, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The legal issues before the Supreme Court include whether the university's use of race in admissions decisions is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, whether the university has a compelling interest

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.

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