After carefully reviewing the oral argument and brief of case 14-191, Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, I was impressed how well the plaintiff attorney argued her defense during the trail. The litigations were as stated, in 2008, the UT Austin enrollment department wrongfully denied admission based upon the school considered race discrimination in its admission process because Fisher was a white female student, and because of her inadequate academic achievements. Fisher lawyer focus adequately on the highlight of the case by persuading the court that she would have gotten accepted into the university if she wasn’t stereotyped on such matters: race, top 10 percent student, grades, test scores which she refer to as personal achievement index. UT at Austin attorneys really didn’t have much leading factories to propose a concrete objective. In the argument Fisher attorney used the Justice Powell‘s example on Bakke system to support is statement. Many students attended the university felt unimportant and spoke out loudly about being isolated. During the cross-examination the university argued that African Americans, Hispanic, and Asian students were denied entry for not meeting college admission requirements, not because of race.
In preparing the case both Fisher and the university prosecutors done an …show more content…
The UT attorney aggressively cross-examination by stated that understand dealing with college rejection letters is normal, but it’s okay to be sad because when one door closes another one opens. In the plaintiff motion, Fisher attorney Rein, presented a close question to help build a convincing argument and provided the court with exclusive facts and evidences to support the oral argument and identifying the relevant issues. Rein use strict scrutiny as a neutral factor of
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Mary Ellen Kimble v. The Worth County R-III Board of Education In this scenario, I feel that the school’s success was highly dependent on their ability to provide “competent and substantial evidence” of Ms. Kimble’s “immoral conduct”(Mary Ellen Kimble v. The Worth County R-III Board of Education, p. 2).On three separate instances, Kimbell was found guilty of “untruthfulness and taking property not her own without consent or permission”(Mary Ellen Kimble v. The Worth County R-III Board of Education, p.7).
In the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Allan Bakke a white male was rejected from regular admissions into California University. He was rejected twice; meanwhile, minority students with lower grade point averages were being admitted into the same school under a special admissions program. After his second rejection, Allan Bakke was very upset, so he filed a law suit to the Superior Court of Yolo County, California. He wanted the chance to be admitted into medical school through the special admissions program. The University said that their admissions program was important and it ought to be kept in the University.
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
Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are institutions of higher education in the United States founded primarily for the education of African Americans. Prior to the mid-1960s, HBCUs were virtually the only institutions open to African Americans due to the vast majority of predominantly white institutions prohibiting qualified African Americans from acceptance during the time of segregation. As such, they are institutional products of an era of discrimination and socially constructed racism against African Americans (Joseph, 2013). Successfully, millions of students have been educated in spite of limited resources, public contempt, accreditation violations, and legislative issues. The purpose of this research paper is to discuss
In the article, “The Truth about ‘holistic College Admissions”, Sara Harberson expresses how universities that are not allowed to use racial preferences on college admissions, are still devising strategies to work around the laws to produce the same result. Harberson states how the institutions are using what is called “holistic admissions”, which allows a college to factor in a student's background, race and income. By filtering out the minority groups, they are creating a less-diverse community, preventing students of certain backgrounds from a proper education, and taking away opportunities from students based on their ethnicity. Colleges are using racial segregation in the admission process so that they can have a white-favoring campus
The civil rights area of the 1960s is over. Affirmative action policies based on racial quotas or preferences have been struck down by the Supreme Court, yet states have an interest in college admission that are diverse and reflect their general population. The University of Texas finds itself defending policies intended to conform to recent court rulings yet merely mentioning race as a factor in a holistic review has drawn a challenge. The University of Texas process of admissions aligns with Gutter V Bollinger. The facts of this case are in keeping with previous court precedents.
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
This law also ensures diversity on campus, and on top of that affirmative action is still used for the remaining students that are not at the top 10% of their class (Hung). Evidently, race plays a crucial role in the admission decisions. Hung claims that race shouldn’t play such a big role in the admission process because it is considered discrimination. He supports this argument by comparing the average GPA and SAT scores of those students that were granted admission but were not in the top 10 percent of their class. African Americans had the lowest averaged scores, followed by Hispanics, then whites, and then Asian Americans.
Barbara Grutter, a white woman applied to the Law School in 1996. She received a 161 LSAT score and obtained an undergraduate GPA of 3.8. Grutter was not admitted at first but placed on a waiting list but ultimately rejected. In 1997, Grutter, similar to Bakke, filed a suit against the Regents of the University of Michigan claiming the she was discriminated against based on her race which violated her Fourteenth Amendment, more specifically the Equal Protection Clause, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Grutter’s main arguments against the Law School included the fact that she was rejected because the usage of race was a “predominant” factor, allowing racial minority groups “a significantly greater chance of admission than students
The continued neoliberalism thinking is consistent with this decision. Although the overall goal was to desegregate schools that enrolled mostly white students, the Fordice decision also affected higher education and even led to the desegregation of primarily black colleges. This litigation is still
Affirmative action in the United States I believe that affirmative action negatively affects on both minorities and majorities. From a minority’s perspective, the idea that minorities can receive benefits from others due to their race, ethnicity, or gender can cause them to feel segregated against anyway. Since the term, ‘minority,’ no longer applies to every females or person of color today, female students or students of color with affluent backgrounds may feel segregated and devalued even when they did not get any special benefit from affirmative action policies. Majorities, in this case, male or white students, will also get discouraged because this can be regarded as a form of reverse discrimination, especially with racial affirmative action programs.
The First Amendment assures freedom of faith. It also affects everyday life in many ways. The amendment has a ban on state authorized religion. In 2000, the Supreme Court presented public prayer in school as being illegal. When “Pregame Prayer” is visible at schools the establishment clause of the First Amendment is then violated.
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
Although, Hogan was permitted to study the courses he was interested in, he was not going to receive any credit for them. Before he tried to apply to the Mississippi University for Women, Joe Hogan was already working as a nurse, but he wanted to study in the School of Nursing the University offered, to receive a baccalaureate degree in nursing. After Hogan was denied admission for credit, he filed an action claiming that the enrollment policy was a violation to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court ended the case favoring the State because according to the court, the State’s interest is to provide educational opportunities for woman in Mississippi. However, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision because the State of Mississippi needed to demonstrate that the classification of gender was related to a governmental objective.