Supreme Court/Fisher - University of Texas Affirmative Action - Research Paper Example

? Supreme Court Fisher - of Texas Affirmative Action Fisher versus of Texas case has been in the US Supreme Court lately over the admissions policy affirmative action issue of the University of Texas located at Austin (Raines, 2012). Abigail Fisher an undergraduate was the one who brought the case forward in the year 2008. She mandated that the court should either make the University’s admission policy inconsistent with or it should overrule the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger case whereby the Supreme Court rules the issue of race did not have a role when it came to universities admission policy. Affirmative action policy related to admissions could be stopped by overruling of the Grutter v Bollinger case. Rachel Multer and Abigael Noel Fisher in the year 2008 were denied access to the University if Texas. Consequently, both women decided to file suit stating that they were denied admission simply because of their race. This was therefore a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection Clause (Raines, 2012). The hard facts nevertheless show that it is not racial discrimination which is the big problem when it comes to higher education; it is the fact that poor students coming from any race do not have a high chance of enrolling into selective schools. Reason being if it is true that students full benefit from exposure to life experiences and views of a classmate’s selection that is diverse, then most likely they are not benefiting much from the most elite colleges in the nation. This paper will look into the conflict that exists in regard to affirmative action and legacy; focusing on the supreme courts decision that it will render in the Fisher v University of Texas case next year. Miss Fisher who is currently 22 years and is white stated that because of her race she was denied admission to the University of Texas, Austin. This case brought new attention to the big issue of racial preferences constitutionality in matters concerning admission decisions that public universities make. The University nevertheless stated that Miss Fisher in the first place would not have gotten admittance to the school despite the fact that race did not play any role in the process (Raines, 2012). The university even questioned whether Miss Fisher suffered an injury that would warrant her to sue the school. In 2003 the Supreme Court had to endorse a 5 to 4 vote in the Grutter v. Bollinger. Officials from the Texas University declared that the school had an affirmative action that was needed in order to build a student body that is diverse enough to be able to include students from the minority group and with a wide range of backgrounds and also the university to have a big number of minority students in numerous classrooms (Raines, 2012). Legal admissions can be described as a preference type issued by educational institutions to specific applicants mostly on the basis of the relationship the family has to the alumni in the particular institution (Nettle, 2012). This usually applies to college and university admission which is usually in American colleges and universities and started after the First World War primarily o respond to the immigrant influx. In some schools, legacy preferences impact on admissions that are comparable to other factors like affirmative action or recruited athlete. Affirmative action in the United States refers to measures of the Equal Opportunity Employment that federal subcontractors and contractors are legally required to take on. The measures are meant to prohibit discrimination against applicants usually on the basis of religion, sex or race (Raines, 2012). There are reports that showed that Asian-American students were the ones who benefitted most from California’s Proposition 209 that prohibited state entities from using affirmative action in the year 1996 (Nettle, 2012). Right after the implementation of the ban, the percentage of Asian Americans studying at University of California, Berkeley shot up from 37.3 percent in the year 1995 to 43.6 percent in the year 2000. From the onwards the Asian Americans percentage and number has gone up to 46 percent at the school. In addition to this, the University of Florida and University of Texas similarly experienced a rise in the number of Asian Americans after the affirmative action was barred. In 1996, Texas banned affirmative action. Reports have shown that even though Asian Americans benefitted from the affirmative action ban, white enrollment however did not grow (Nettle, 2012). The percentage of white students in California, Florida and Texas at public colleges and universities declined. Actually there was a decrease from 56.9 percent in the year 1990 to 33.3 percent in the year 2005. The number of white students was dropping due to demographic changes in Texas, California and Florida. Nevertheless there were casualties who resulted from the Affirmative action ban and these were the African Americans. California’s elite public universities experienced an exodus of quite a huge number of African Americans. Before the affirmative action was banned, UCB’s entering class consisted of 6.5 percent of African Americans however in 2005, a decade later, the blacks percentage of the schools freshman class went down to less than 3 percent. Florida and Texas universities were the ones that experienced a huge decrease in the African American students (Nettle, 2012). The price of doing away with affirmative action particularly of higher education was that it resulted to fewer diverse college campuses, less competitive workforce and lack diverse academic viewpoints. Therefore, states that banned affirmative action have to look for different ways to create diversity in colleges and universities. Affirmative action can be described as an extremely effective tool meant to redress injustices that have been in society leading to discrimination of women and people’s race (Espenshade, 2012). The Supreme Court is likely to get another affirmative action case and this has made affirmative action advocates extremely worried. The Columbia president declared that it was worrying as it poses a threat to undo quite a number of decades of effort in the higher education to come up with an educationally enriched and just environment. The Supreme Court majority gave a vote that favored the time-limited affirmation action meant to service “educational diversity”. Reason being it appeared wrong to reject a racial diversity quest as a legitimate basis for affirmative action based on race in higher education. Supporters of affirmative action however could turn to and it would be impossible for the Supreme Court to reject and even provide a limited race-based affirmative action basis over a considerable length of time. Those for the affirmative action have noted the contrast that exists between widespread legal admissions acceptance by the public and affirmative action that is race based (Espenshade, 2012). Under several statues, it is considered illegal to intentionally discriminate and also incase of a facially neutral practice as to race functions to the disadvantage of a certain racial group. “Disparate impact”, is a concept that guard against discriminating effects on a gender basis and other protected class status; for instance in employment cases where weight and height requirements get many women disproportionately eliminated from police officer and firefighter positions (Wieder, 2012). In legal admissions, the alumni universe of in most schools has always been and will still continue to be like that for quite a while disproportionately white in comparison to the prospective students population. Seats are usually reserved for legacy candidates and so the potential minority enrollees are disadvantaged as there are few legacy seats that minority students can compete. Universities would be at a better position to put a strong case that the legacy admissions practice serves legitimate and important purposes, which includes the alumni loyalty building and rising of funds (Wieder, 2012). This would mean combining legacy admissions with so as to do away with the opportunity gap that has been caused by legacy programs. Disparate impact claims have ceased to exist for a number of decades to prove Constitution violations. This however does not mean that universities would not get a strong rationale to be able to continue some affirmative action that is race based so as to compensate for their legacy admissions policies they have currently as a practical issue reserve some seats for whites. Consequently, this does not mean civil rights advocates will not be able to challenge the programs for legal admission that had not been paired with affirmative action programs that were compensatory. The potential of having legacy admissions to be a rationale for affirmative action that is race-based is encouraged by the fact that the Supreme Court would find it hard to deny legal principle that is well established. Universities knowing their alumni pools demographics have always known that it is their actions have invariably continued to exclude applicants from the minority groups disproportionately from contending the legacy seats. The Supreme Court precedent is usually a powerful thing and therefore affirmative cases like this one of Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin can make people change their outlook on the sensitive issue of race in relation to education. This will be the first affirmative case after the Bollinger 2003 case whereby the Courts decision hardly kept affirmative action going since there was a 5-4 margin. Last year The UT-Austin had won the appeals of the U.S Court in New Orleans stating that their process of admissions was fitting within the standard s that had been set in regards to the affirmative action process. Nevertheless this year Justice Elena Kegan has withdrawn from that decision and so the Court has one less voice to support their argument. For the lower courts ruling to be upheld, there has to be a decision of a tie (4-4) or higher (5-3) favoring the University of Texas must be reached at. Should SCOTUS rule in Fishers favor (5-3 or even higher), it results will be a reversal of the Gritter v. Bollinger 2003 case and this would overturn affirmative action admission policies in colleges. If Fisher was to win her case, the issue of race would exist being a factor particularly when admitting students to college while effectively ending diversification practices in universities. In 2008, Abigael Fisher had applied to the University of Texas, Austin but was denied entrance following the university’s program for primary admissions; the top ten percent plan that admits top 10percent of high school graduates despite their sex or race as she had not qualified. The plan made up 81pecent of the total number of freshmen and therefore Fisher was neither admitted in the remaining 19 percent. This is why she filed the complaint against the policies of the university, a complaint that showed race as a determinant of the student body diversity. Admission process has had diversification efforts increased however leadership and talents go hand in hand with race so that major impressions can be made on a student’s application. First “affirmation cases” are usually noted as Brown v. Board I & II. This is where the Supreme Court changed the claim stating “separate, but equal” so as to ensure equal education for African American students (Wieder, 2012). This set the standard that the Supreme Court possessed the power to tackle the factor of race in education and more so had obligatory duties to apply the Brown v. Board to the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause. The first University affirmative action setting was in the year 1977 was with the University of California Regents v. Bakke. This case laid down the foundation for each and every debate around asking the question whether there should be an existence of affirmative action in college admissions processes. All the cases dealing with affirmative action of higher education are filed by Caucasians who insist that there has been a violation of their equal protections right. A racial quota system was voted by the Court that it was violating the Civil Rights of 1964 and that using the race factor during higher education admission processes was permissible. In 2003 the Grutter v. Bollinger case came about where Barbara Grutter a female Caucasian got refused admission at the University of Michigan law school even though she had 3.8 GPA and 161 in her LSAT. Consequently she sued the university since it admitted that the race factor applied in the school when accepting students. The Court proceeded in a 5-4 decision upholding a narrow policy whereby race was factor and hence did not pose a violation to the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, hence it was allowed (Wieder, 2012). Another was the Gratz v. Bollinger case whereby Jeniffer Gratz filed a case against University of Michigan after being denied admission to the schools undergraduate (Caesar, 2011). Once more the school saw their interest when it comes to cultivating diversity of minorities who were not presented fully on campus put more emphasis in their point system process of admission whereby minority stats weighed at heavier point values. The Gratz decision that was made determined that the factor of race could not be measured on the basis of point system that is assigned to every applicant, which means that students from the racial minority group would count towards measure test scores and leadership capabilities (Lewin, 2011). Gratz was therefore a disadvantage on Grutter since colleges and universities must find a measurable way that they would use to account for race during the admissions processes. The response given to Fishers case shows that despite the fact that affirmative action has been debated over for many decades, still it continues to be a potent one. Many individuals as well as organizations have put a lot of input into the Supreme Court via amicus briefs whereby 73 briefs support the university while 17 have been filed to support Fisher (Caesar, 2011). Allan West, Republican Representative Libertarian Cato institute and Ed Meese, who was Ronald Reagan’s attorney, have signed briefs to support Fisher. Conversely, the court is hearing from people like Democratic Senate leaders Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, American Psychological Association and Teach for America (Lewin, 2011). If the court was to give critical ruling against the University of Texas, Austin system then it would mean that other schools would have pressure to depend their consideration in regards to the race factor. According to CBS news, if the court overruled Grutter, it would be an extremely drastic move and particularly politically speaking. Arguments by the University of Texas state that having a diverse student body is extremely imperative in training future leaders with educational benefits that are invaluable. The university argues that the admission process it has, meets the court standards in Grutter and other cases (Lewin, 2011). When it comes to the courts decision on the affirmative action ban by Michigan the federal court struck down Michigan’s 2006 ban in regards to the issue of race and gender in both government hiring and public university admissions in the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policies (Caesar, 2011). The United States Court of Appeal made a 2-1 ruling in Cincinnati for the Sixth Circuit and stated that the voter approved ban is unconstitutional in altering Michigan’s political structure by totally burdening racial minorities. According to George Washington who was representing the coalition that was challenging the ban, said it was a big victory and irrespective of the appeals they would eventually emerge the winners. Bill Schuette, the Michigan’s attorney general promised that he would appeal the decision that would overturn the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative via a formal request meant for rehearing en banc by the whole lot of 16 judges (Caesar, 2011). He stated that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative comprised of the important premise of what America stands for which is equal opportunity under the law. He continued to state that students being admitted in the universities should do so on the basis of merit. A spokeswoman in the Michigan University Kelly Cunningham, stated that it was rather soon to determine whether the ruling would result to a change in the policies of admission. In Texas, affirmative action received a lift when the entire Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had a vote of 9 to 7 so as not to hear an appeal made by a three-judge panel decision supporting the use of race to be a plus factor when students are being admitted to the University of Texas. Michigan’s affirmative action ban that covered both government hiring and public college and universities admission was included in the State Constitution after a voter initiative in 2006 was passed by 58 percent to 42 percent (Caesar, 2011). This was referred to as Proposal 2 and it went ahead to disallow public institutions from providing preferential treatment to anybody or group merely on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, color or national origin. The Supreme Courts decision was followed by the voter initiative and found that whilst the University of Michigan was unable to set quotas for particular racial groups, or even award them extra points in the admissions for undergraduate, it would however regard race as a factor in the school admissions holistic law process. According to legal experts, they stated that it was exceedingly challenging to predict how the United States Supreme Court would vote in the Michigan affirmative action ban. In the California Affirmative action ban on using ethnicity, race and gender when admitting students to both public colleges and universities, the federal appeals courts panel upheld the ban (The New York Times, 2012). This ruling was being made a second time the 9th United States Circuit of Appeals had rejected a challenge to the voter initiative states landmark, Proposition 209 which had been passed in the year 1996. Those who were supporting the affirmative action, had asked that the court reconsiders the decision it made in 1997 after the US Supreme Court in 2003 ruled that affirmative action could be administered in college admissions, stated they would enquire the whole appellate court to go over the case especially since the decision had been made by a three judge panel. Almost six states have taken on affirmative action bans in state college admissions. Apart from California, others include Arizona, Michigan, Nebraska, Washington and Oklahoma. The court rejected the arguments made by the plaintiff and ruled that a new ruling would be needed and that the preceding decision still applied. In the month February, there was an agreement by the Supreme Court that it would hear the case against University of Texas stating that the affirmative action is discriminatory. If the court decided to go against the University, this could definitely end race consideration in admissions of public universities (The New York Times, 2012). References Caesar, S. (2011). Court strikes down Michigan ban on affirmative action in college admissions: Los Angeles Times. Retrieved on 14th November 2012 from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/01/nation/la-na-michigan-ban-20110702 Espenshade, T. (2012). Moving beyond affirmative action: The New York Times. Retrieved on 14th November 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/moving-beyond-affirmative-action.html Lewin, T. (2011). Court overturns Michigan affirmative action ban. Retrieved on 14th November 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/education/02michigan.html?_r=0 Nettle, N. (2012). Affirmative action bans in universities; who gains? Retrieved on 14th November 2012 from http://racerelations.about.com/od/thelegalsystem/a/WhoBenefitsfromAffirmativeActionsBaninUniversities.htm Raines, J. (2012). Affirmative action supreme court case. How SCOTUS may rule on Fisher vs. University of Texas. Retrieved on 14th November 2012 from http://www.policymic.com/articles/16129/affirmative-action-supreme-court-case-how-scotus-may-rule-on-fisher-vs-university-of-texas The New York Times, (2012). California: Affirmative Action upheld. Retrieved on 14th November 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/california-affirmative-action-ban-upheld.html Wieder, B. (2012). Affirmative Action Supreme Court hearing: Does the practice violate equal protection’ under 14th Amendment? Retrieved on 14th November 2012 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/affirmative-action-suprem_n_1942616.html Read More