The court determined that the plaintiff did not show enough direct or circumstantial evidence to survive a motion of summary judgment on her reverse discrimination claims, which in turn are based on the analysis used in Title VII cases. The court finds that the plaintiff’s claim of race discrimination under the Elliot- Larson Act must fail as well. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence that showed the court any act of illegal discrimination. The plaintiff used the universities affirmative action plan in her favor. The university agreed that their action plan does state the support of minorities, it had no barring on the plaintiffs outcome of the position she applied for. The defendants were granted their motion for summary judgment, and …show more content…
Employers are sued for race discrimination, and are taken to court on a regular basis. This case is one example of that, but there are preventative measures that could be taken to prevent events like this from occurring as regular as they do. Some of the preventative measures that could have been applied to this case may …show more content…
Dean Thompson could have sat in on the interviews of all applicants. 3. The University could consider rewording their Affirmative Action Plan. 4. After the final three applicants declined the offers, the committee could have used the same guidelines and qualifications for the next pool of applicants. 5. The University could have mailed a letter to the other applicants saying that the final three all declined the position, and if they wanted to reapply they could choose to do so. 6. The University in the job posting could have stated that they were looking for applicants with business, and intramural experience. 7. The hiring committee could have stated they were looking for applicants with that experience in person, during the interview process. All of these preventative measures could be a successful way to make sure events like this do not happen in the future to SVSU, and other universities in the country. It would limit the amount of mild cases like this one where the plaintiff does not have a strong argument, and only brought the alleged charges against the university because she was denied the position of Coordinator of Campus Recreation. Cases like this happen all the time, even to our very own recreation center on Ball States Campus. The staff there is very careful with daily operations and tries to limit the amount of liability that they face. Liability can never be removed, but it can be
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, No.14-981. Transcript of Gregory G. Garre Esq’s oral argument on behalf of the Respondent. Pg.51, lines 10-13, & Pg.55, lines 7-9: Back in 2002, from a class of 8,000, there were only 272 black students enrolled; 90% of the time, it is typical for a normal size classroom of to have zero to one African American student. Id. General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. agrees that in the event of two applicants’ criteria are exact alike, their race factors does “not necessary” matter in the admission office’s decision making. “The increasingly fierce competition for the decreasing number of seats available for Texas students outside the top 10% rule results in minority students being under-represented, and
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.
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.
Part III applies the Court’s precedent to the University’s affirmative action policy and concludes that the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause. Part IV examines the impact of Fisher II on existing affirmative action policies and concludes that the Court’s holding will be narrowly crafted and thus negligibly impact other policies. In addition, Part IV asserts that the Court’s affirmative action jurisprudence should be fundamentally altered because it fails to adequately guide lower courts, legislatures, and litigants concerning the permissible scope of affirmative action policies. As discussed in Part IV, a more effective—and honest—approach would be to acknowledge that: (1) diversity is an essential part of ensuring inclusion in higher education and the workplace; (2) remedying past discrimination is a compelling state interest; and (3) in limited circumstances race may be a dispositive factor in the admissions or hiring process. The Court’s current framework, although well-intentioned, ignores these realities and tries to quantify the role of race in admissions – a task that is impossible and
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 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
Colleges and universities have been involved in affirmative action programs. An example is a recent court case Schuette versus BAMN. In April 2014, the Supreme Court upheld an amendment to the state constitution of Michigan that banned the use of race as a factor in admission and hiring decisions in all state agencies. The decision ended affirmative action, in any form, in Michigan and in several other states with similar
The Supreme Court has not offered an opinion on affirmative action in higher education since its 1978 ruling in Regents of the Univ. Of California v. Bakke. In that determination, the Supreme Courts Justice Powell argued that a university could take race into account as one among a number of factors in student admissions for the purposed of achieving student body diversity. Since the time of this ruling, affirmative action programs with regard to student admissions, financial assistance, and even faculty employment have been founded mainly on achieving diversity. Since the Bakke decision, affirmative action has been an increasingly contentious issue between those in favor of its employment and those opposed to it.
In the case of Fisher v. The University of Texas, Affirmative Action has played a major role in the future of affirmative action cases. According to, the novel For Discrimination: Race, Affirmative Action, and the Law, affirmative action is defined as, to seek to remedy the significant underrepresentation of members of a certain, racial, ethnic, or other groups through measures that take group membership or identity into account (R. Kennedy 2013 and P. Brest and M. Oshige 1994). Affirmative Action follows back into America’s past from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which stated all persons born in the United States were citizens but before this was passed there was the Dred Scott decision which had ruled blacks whether free or enslaved were
Considering all legal actions that we can make chandler, there is no reverse discrimination here. There are many pros and cons to your claim and what the evidence provides does not in fact state any form of reverse discrimination. The reserved spots for the list are indeed people who are part of diverse backgrounds, and because you are not part of that criteria you do not qualify for the scholarship. However, it is not reverse discrimination because the requirements are self explanatory to why the credentials are not there. However, there should some form of financial aid to whoever needs it and in this case that is you.
Professor Richard Lempert, who took part in drafting the U-M’s policy explains that “this language did not purport to remedy past discrimination, but rather to include students who may bring to the Law School a perspective different from that of members of groups which have not been the victims of such discrimination” (O’Connor). The U-M’s policy is not meant to rectify discrimination, but is instead meant to admit students that can bring a fresh view to their college that’s different from races that haven’t discriminated against. Affirmative action allows for more students with different perspective to be admitted, which allows for deeper classroom discussions. With minority students becoming more comfortable
In 2008, a female student named Abigail Fisher applied for undergraduate admission to University of Texas; however, she was denied admission to the university. Fisher’s argument over this rejection was racial discrimination. She filled a lawsuit against the university because she felt racially discriminated as many minority
However, some states' court rulings and referenda banned race-based admission and financial aid to the underrepresented student groups in public universities. These court judgments and majority (whites) domination disregard the purpose of affirmative action and social justice spirit, thereby impeding access to college education by underrepresented students (The Chronicle of Higher Education,
“The medical school reserved 16 out of 100 seats in its entering class for minorities, including ‘Blacks,’ ‘Chicanos,’ ‘Asians,’ and ‘American Indians’. The rigid admissions quota was administered by a special school committee” (McBride). Bakke believed his rejections were racist because his qualifications were greater than any of the minority students that were admitted over him. He believed he was rejected from admission directly because of race. The question that was directed at the court was “Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke’s application for admission to its medical schools?”