In 2008, Abigal N. Fisher, a caucasian female, applied as a undergrad student at University of Texas at Austin, but was denied admissions. UT admissions policy has a top 10% rule which means, the first top 10% of high school graduates are automatically admitted. Fisher was not in this 10% category and was not admitted based on this rule. UT bases its admission decision partially based on race of the applicant. Based on this consideration, Fisher believes she was denied because of her race. In her argument statement, Fisher attends that the use of race for consideration is in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. In spring of 2008, Fisher filed a suit in the U.S. District Court of Western Texas. Eventually, after the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The fourteenth amendment states in the equal protection clause that states may not discriminate against any citizen for any reason, and must allow the same privileges, rights, and conservation. Hogan was on a mission to gain relief as well as compensation for the damages caused. The case was argued on March 22, 1982. The argument from Joe Hogan was proposed by advocate, Wilbur Colom. The petitioner’s side was presented by Hunter M. Gholson, in representation for Mississippi University for Women.
n the Supreme Court case University of California v. Bakke in 1978, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission to the University of California, Davis Medical School because he was white, although he had great MCAT, GPA, and test scores he was denied twice, because the school was using “racial quotas” during admission and had “reserved 16 out of 100 seats in its entering class for minorities, including "Blacks," "Chicanos," "Asians," and "American Indians"’’("Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. " West's Encyclopedia). Bakke sued the University of California for using “racial quotas” as well as claiming that the schools admission processes was a violation of “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth
A Failed Quest: The Natural vs The Fisher King Every hero must go through the hero’s journey of departure, initiation and return. The hope for each hero, and the most common ending to stories using the monomyth, is that the hero succeeds and returns to the normal world with wisdom and freedom from the fear of death. However, what happens if the hero doesn’t defeat the great evil, or fails to rescue the princess? The novel, The Natural, seeks to answer this question through its’ loose adaptation of the Fisher King myth and its’ main character: Roy Hobbs.
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”).
Procedural history. Barbara Grutter (Plaintiff), a white resident from the state of Michigan, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School (Defendant). She sued the Law School in a federal district court, and alleged racial discrimination against her in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment on the basis of the Defendant’s consideration of race as a key factor in the school’s admissions process. The district court upheld the Plaintiff’s claim. The court of appeals reversed.
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
Jennifer Delahunty Britz’s article, “To All the Girls I’ve Rejected”, begins by explaining how her daughter was waitlisted at a college she was qualified to attend. Following this, Britz elucidates reasoning behind this, informing that colleges show bias towards male applicants. It soon becomes clear that many declined and waitlisted female applicants possess more capability than accepted males. In order to prevent this, admission committees should exercise a gender-blind admittance procedure. Britz, dean of admissions at Kenyon College argues that: “few of us…were as talented…at age 17 as this young woman.
This is shown on page 75 and it is stated, “... then I signed up for my first and only college prep meeting with my guidance counselor. He took one look at my list- Northwestern, University of Pennsylvania, Cornell, and SUNY Binghamton- and smiled a smile that didn’t quite reach his eyes as he said, “These schools are kind of a reach for you” (Rhuday-Perkovich 75). This girl is a straight A+ student who takes AP classes and gets better grades than almost every one of her peers yet her own guidance counselor is trying to tell her that she isn’t qualified for these colleges. It's ridiculous and this just goes back to the question earlier, would this behavior have happened had it been a white girl with the same resume?
Grutter V. Bollinger Research Paper 2 Abstract Barbara Grutter (plaintiff) which is a resident of Michigan who was denied admissions into the University of Michigan Law School. Lee Bollinger (defendant) was president of the University of Michigan. Grutter filed this suit because the University had discriminated against the basis of race. Supreme Court ruled that the use of affirmative action in school admissions is constitutional if it treats race as some factor.
However, there’s a certain perversion to admission policies like this, policies like UT’s “top 10” program. These policies leverage their racial diversity via neighborhood, and thus public high school, segregation. As Jamelle Bouie write in a Slate article on the
Senate Bill 1543 that became effective August of this year works to protect students who did not complete a typical high school program from being treated unfairly when being considered for admission to a university. A student who submits evidence of completing an education following the same standards, specifically including standards on standardized testing scores, than they must be equally considered as a student who did graduate from a public school. In order to determine this student’s would-be rank in a high school class if it is a factor in determining admission, the institution must decide that student’s rank based on the average graduating students rank with similar testing scores on the standardized test
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.
(Bryan-Vs-McPherson, 2009) In the lawsuit, Bryan claimed his Fourth Amendment violated, assault, and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, a violation of California Civil Code 52.1, as well as failure to train and related causes of action. (Bryan-Vs-McPherson, 2009) Officer McPherson filed an appeal, but the judge denied his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. (Bryan-Vs-McPherson, 2009)
One of these precedents, Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., was a case that stated a cause of action was present for retaliation for trying to stop discrimination against African Americans. Since suing for retaliation for standing up for a race is protected under the 14th amendment, why would it not be the same for gender? Other precedents used for Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Ed. include Cannon v. University of Chicago, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Ed. Cannon v. University of Chicago ruled that Title IX prohibits unlawful sex discrimination, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools ruled that suits for money loss resulting from discrimination are a right under Title IX, and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education ruled that indifference about harassment by another student was intentional discrimination(Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Ed.).
In the case of Robert Jordan v. City of New London and Keith Harrigan, the plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against based on his intellect. The Plaintiff Robert Jordan, a 46-year-old college graduate, with a degree in literature and interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement, took a written assessment with 500 other applicants on 16 March 1996, as part of a screening process for the position of police officer. The testing material used included the Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam referred to as “WPT,” which measures the cognitive ability of test subjects (2nd). This process was used to weed out the applicant pool, revealing the most qualified applicants based on test scores. The WPT test included recommended minimum and maximum test scores for various professions in the accompanying manual.