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.
"This case presents the difficult issue of balancing the protection of students ' rights and that of personal privacy ... while ensuring that no student is unnecessarily marginalized while attending school," the judge wrote. The court order said that "Defendants are enjoined from enforcing the Guidelines against Plaintiffs and their respective schools, school boards, and other public, educationally-based institutions. Further, while this injunction remains in place, Defendants are enjoined from initiating, continuing, or concluding any investigation based on Defendant ' interpretation that the definition of sex includes gender identity in Title IX 's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of
Thus, the law’s strongest protections have been rendered meaningless. Clearly they never heard of Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority. The tyranny of the majority is when a dominant group uses its control of the government to abuse the rights of minority groups (Magstadt, p.78, 2015). Executing laws that place restrictions on minorities sounds all too familiar. Do some just turn a blind eye to what is written in our constitution?
The creation of the VWIL was also declared to not be an equal alternative to VMI, as it did come with the same reputation and prestige that a VMI diploma has with it. The majority opinion, written by Ginsberg, said that because VMI could not justify that their restrictions on genders and how it contributed to the education or structure of the school that it was unconstitutional to deny this right to women (U.S. v. Virginia, 1996). Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting argument in which he argued that the court’s decision was more based on strict scrutiny rather than intermediate scrutiny as it was in Craig v. Boren. By not allowing women, Virginia was facing the same dilemma as Oklahoma in Craig v. Boren when the Equal Protection Clause had been called into question when state law gave two different drinking ages for different sexes. In this 7-2 case was the first to Craig v. Boren, which stated that Oklahoma having two different drinking ages for males and females was unconstitutional as it did not provide justification as to why the genders had different standards (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015a).
When arguing for racial equality, James Farmer Jr. quotes St.Augustine, “An unjust law is no law at all.” He claims that just laws are meant to protect all citizens; whereas, unjust laws that discriminate Negroes are not laws to be followed, thus raising awareness of racial discrimination by using emotional and logical appeals. In The Great Debaters, Henry Lowe appeals to the audience’s emotions during a debate about Negro integration into state universities. To challenge his opponent’s claim that the South isn 't ready to integrate Negroes into universities, he affirms that if change wasn’t forcefully brought upon the South, Negroes would “still be in chains,” which is an allusion to slavery. With this point, he is able to raise awareness of
Affirmative Action Affirmative Action is a policy or program intended to redress past discrimination and promote equal opportunities in education and employment. This is a highly controversial and well known topic, especially when considering it as part of college admissions. Many argue that colleges and universities should consider a student’s race and national origin when reviewing submitted applications. This is merely an attempt to create a more diverse student body, and assure that discrimination not occur. Although there is evidence to support that Affirmative Action is beneficial to the college and its student body, it should not exists in admissions because it limits the number of qualified non-minority students admitted.
The distinction made by Hernandez before the Supreme Court is such that although the State may classify Mexican-Americans as “Whites,” the difference in treatment renders them worlds apart from Caucasians. Ironically, it was necessary for Hernandez to make this distinction in order to be treated as an equal. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that the triumph of intellect over power is essential to our survival as a species. Undeserving patriotism aside, America is the only country since its birth that has repeatedly said that we can do better; it is inherent in our being. When we fight for our rights as men, we don’t defend a piece of paper or land but rather the ideas they were founded on and so long as we hold sacred and undeniable the principle that all men are created equal, America will never
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.
In spite of the fact that a privilege to marry is not listed in the Constitution, the Court said that such a privilege is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment in light of the fact that such choices are vital to our survival and our values. Accordingly, they should essentially reside with the individual instead of with the state. This choice is a conflict with the popular argument that something cannot be an actual constitutional right unless it is spelled out straightforwardly in the U.S. Constitution. It additionally stands out amongst the most imperative models on the general thought of common uniformity, clarifying that essential social equality is basic to our reality and cannot really be restricted on the grounds that a few people trust that their god can 't help
Based on these reasons, Sacks and Thiel believe that instead of accomplishing its purpose of putting an end to discrimination, affirmative action has instead promoted discrimination and unequal rights to certain students. In order to solve the issues of affirmative action, the authors suggest that the “sole criterion” for admissions should revolve around personal “achievements” which race can not be categorized into since they describe it as a personal “trait.” By focusing solely on merit, colleges would be evaluating students based on aspects that are considered to be nondiscriminative.
“A common law Constitution is a "living" Constitution, but it is also one that can protect fundamental principles against transient public opinion, and it is not one that judges (or anyone else) can simply manipulate to fit their own ideas”( Strauss, David A). With today’s society and the way things are its hard to say whether or not this document is living or not. I still believe the Constitution is a non-living document. In another article I read, Scalia states that “that issues such as abortion and homosexuality do not appear in the Constitution makes them matters for which citizens and states can enact laws”( Patel, Ushma). Basically what he’s saying is that issues that are not supported in the Constitution make it not a living document.
In the pursuit of knowledge one should not be discriminated against in regards to race, religion, sex, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. These factors should not be factored in when making decisions for the undergraduate admissions in universities. Academic performance should be the priority when the selection is made because there are several disadvantages for making decisions based on, let’s say race. Some of them include violating the rights of people, promoting a biased and unjust society, widening the social and financial inequalities between the races. Also it results in under qualification of that race and can lead to failure in the future.
The most persuasive argument for the petitioner is that UT’s rationale for the use of race lacks the requisite clarity to survive the application of strict scrutiny. Since the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications are to be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny. Therefore, when government decisions take into account race it must serve a compelling government interest. The petitioner’s least convincing argument is that UT’s consideration of face is too modest to be constitutional. Race is supposed to have a modest impact and holistic and individualized which was approved in the Grutter and Bakke cases.
Spring Branch I.S.D. v. Stamos Supreme Court of Texas, 1985 695.S.W.2d 556 [27 Educ. L. Rep. 640] This case examined the constitutionality of the Texas Education Code 21.920 (b) “No Pass, No Play” rule: A student, other than a mentally retarded student, enrolled in a school district in this state shall be suspended from participation in any extracurricular activity sponsored or sanctioned by the school district during the grade reporting period after a grade reporting period in which the student received a grade lower than the equivalent of 70 on a scale of 100 in any academic class. The campus principal may remove this suspension if the class is an identified honors or advanced class. A student may not be suspended under this subsection