Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gender and race discrimination
Affirmative action in college admissions
Gender and race discrimination
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gender and race discrimination
Affirmative action in college admissions
Gender and race discrimination
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 Supreme Court made a mistake when they decided with the University of Texas; no college should take in race as a factor when selecting applications of students. In 2007, two female high school students applied to the University of Texas; one of the girls being Miss Abigail N. Fisher. Abigail was a caucasian, in the top 12% of her school at Stephen Austin High School, but she was denied by the University of Texas along with a friend of her’s. However,
Because there are two cases involved, there are two different legal questions that we must answer. First, we were to answer whether The Asian Society’s and its members Equal Protection rights were abridged upon by them being denied the benefits of the other minorities that attend West Central Dixie State University. Secondly, we were to answer the question brought to the court by The Sons of the Confederacy: Is the policy of positive segregation implemented by the university unconstitutional based on the rights guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection clause. We agree with the lower Court’s ruling in the case of The Asian Society that the policy itself it not unconstitutional, but that it does violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the compelling interest of the university is not narrowly-tailored enough. It should include all minorities not just some for the policy of positive segregation to fulfill its purpose of multiculturalism and diversity.
Fisher v. University of Texas was a case that formed in 2008. Abigail Fisher claimed that she was rejected from The University of Texas because she was white. The case seemed to have caught attention from around the U.S. The case soon made its way to the Supreme Court. Here’s why.
In the end the Supreme Court supported the lawfulness of affirmative action, but restricted its practice. The court’s ruling
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
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.
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
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the Supreme Court decided that the amendment of Michigan’s Constitution which banned affirmative action at public institutions was constitutional. Prior to the enactment of this law, Michigan residents had voted in favor of the proposed amendment that prohibited consideration of race or sex in admissions to Michigan’s public universities. In turn, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, sued state officials-- arguing that this amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
The Supreme Court case of The Regents of the University of California versus Bakke questioned the use of affirmative action in applications. The medical school of the University of California at Davis reserved sixteen out of one hundred seats of every entering class for minorities (Blacks, Chicanos, Asians, and American Indians) (Banfield pg.82). Allan Bakke a white male in his mid-thirties was twice denied access to the University strictly based on quotas, although Bakke had MCAT scores and GPA higher than other minority applicants admitted (McBride par.3). Bakke would later sue The University of California on the basis that the school had violated the civil rights act of 1964.
Baylor College of Medicine, 1984; Gonzalez v. Southern Methodist University, 1976; Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003; Tayyari v. New Mexico State University, 1980). Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) is an example where it was believed that race influenced the admission chances of students into the Law School mentioned. While race was a factor in admissions into the Law School, it was not given a large enough weight to influence admissions selection, but rather to ensure diversity among those admitted; this practice was found to be acceptable (Grutter v. Bolli, 2003). In some cases that have been brought before the courts it is not just the application process that some believe is discriminatory, but the admissions tests as well. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) mentioned the LSAT as being unfavorable for minority students, however Gonzalez v. Southern Methodist University (1976) brought up unfair application tests for minorities to the courts almost three decades prior.
As a minority student at Harvard law, Obama stressed that colleges who select students to create a diverse student body, are not doing so for educational benefits. Moreover, Obama was questioned on what he expects when his daughters are old enough to apply to college. Obama responded by saying “they (his daughters) should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged, and there is nothing wrong with that.” Along with President Obama, numerous people argue that the rationale for racial preferences in college admissions is corrective, as well as to help “struggling” African Americans achieve racial equality in society. The conflicting views on the topic of Affirmative Action makes it a heavily debated and controversial issue in politics and debates; and despite laws that both support or oppose it, the amount of attention paid to it becomes its own
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
Affirmative action is a messy, brute force method of trying to close the enrollment gap. Although on paper it may seem like a good idea to require colleges to admit a certain number of students of color, it actually gives an unfair advantage to minorities. A white student and a student of color with identical grades, test scores, and resumes do not have an equal chance of getting into the same college because one student belongs to a minority. Affirmative action causes the same problem it attempts to solve in reverse. Ashley K., a student who gave her opinion to the New York Times, says that she is “being given an advantage in college admissions” based on her race.
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