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.
In the court case Grutter v. Bollinger, it was ruled that that race had an appropriate but limited role in the admissions policies of public universities. Both Fisher and Michalewicz believed that the school was selecting more people that where of color over equally as eligible whites due to this court case. Fisher decided to bring this
The case was Jennifer Gratz v Lee Bollinger. Jennifer Gratz, a caucasian women, applied to the University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) and got denied. The University of Michigan’s admission was based on a 100 point, point system. The University automatically awarded 20 points to students who were a member a minority
The second case filed against the University of Michigan is Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). The suit was filed by non-minority applicants who alleged the university for using race as the prevailing factor in admitting students and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI and Section 1981 (Green, 2004, p. 144). In their defense, the University of Michigan argued that the university seeks to ensure their ability to make unique contributions to the character of the student body by enrolling a “meaningful number” of underrepresented minority students (Green, 2004, p. 147). In contrast to the Gratz case, the district court did not follow Justice Powell’s rationale in the Bakke case and the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Though in Grutter v. Bollinger we deal with the 14th amendment of the Equal Protection Clause and racial classifications too, the way race is used is slightly differs. In this particular case, the court had to decide whether the use of race at the Univeristy of Michigan Law School during the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Barbara Grutter, a Caucasian applicant, applied to the University of Michigan in 1996 with a 3.8 GPA and a score of 161 on her LSAT. Grutter was placed on the waitlist, but was subsequently denied admission to the school. Grutter claims that she was only denied because of her race, as the University uses race as a factor in the admission process.
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.
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
Shelby Steele’s perspective about affirmative action is that it’s didn’t help African Americans achieve equality. Continuously, he believes that affirmative action only reinforces the misconception that people should be treated differently according to their outward appearance. Affirmative action is created to improve opportunities for minorities in employment and education. Like any legalization, affirmative action has positive and negative sides, however I disagree with Shelby Steele that negative effect on minorities. In our country, we have decades of racial, economical, and social inequality for minorities, and affirmative action tries to address that disparity.
Bakke (1978) stated that the supreme court struck down on certain types of race-based preferences in state college admissions as violating the equal protection clause. This made it easier for minorities to be accepted to colleges. Sixteen out of one hundred seats were reserved for minority applicants, which were Blacks, Asians, Chicanos, and Native Americans. A white applicant named Allan Bakke, was denied admission twice, despite having a higher GPA and MCAT score than some of the minority applicant who were accepted admission. This is discrimination because applicants were accepted just because of their race, which goes against the 14th amendment.
The Supreme Court, while conceivably powerful and instituted to uphold the Constitution, actually has little ability to harness and implement its power to protect minorities. The opinions/rulings of the Supreme Court are not directed to the public, rather these opinions are directed to check the other two branches of government, which are able to implement rulings to protect minorities, if they so choose. Simply, the Court acts as a “middle man.”
Affirmative Action Reader pg. 244 “ those many in our society that are darker, poorer, more identifiably foreign will continue to suffer the poverty, marginalization, immersion and incarceration.” Statistics are staggering Racial Disparities in Incarceration African Americans constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population, they are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites, what’s shocking is that one in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001 and if the trends continues one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime. I am for affirmative action, as I believe that when the late President John F Kennedy signed the affirmative action on March 6th 1961,
On August 6, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the 15th amendment. Before this law was signed, African Americans in the South had trouble voting mostly because of discrimination. In result, they had little say in government. The 15th amendment, also known as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 said that African American men had the right to vote. It said that all citizens had the right to vote no matter what
Both “Affirmative Action for Dummies” by Tim Wise and “Affirmative Action: Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education” made me think about how over the years, affirmative action has evolved from the civil war era to the twentieth century to now. I agree how Tim Wise uses the difference between institutional racism and affirmative action to explain his view on the subject. He describes affirmative action and discrimination as two separate concepts, one based on a larger social structure and the other based on color and race. I also agree with the fact that both terms have historical impacted history in two separate ways. Historical events such as Plessy vs Ferguson case and the addition of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments challenged many
At least four Supreme Court justices believe that affirmative action is unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts has said that “the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”. This viewpoint offers no differentiation between “race consciousness” and “racism”, but is a quite common opinion. This sort of viewpoint is what may drive America towards class-based rather than race-based affirmative action. Because of the disparities in income and wealth, minorities are as likely as whites to benefit under a class-based policy.
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
