Fisher Vs. University of Texas (2013) court decision dates back to the Affirmative Action Plan put into place in the 1960’s during the Civil Rights Movement. Specifically, affirmative action for higher education suggests that “admission policies that provide equal access to education for those groups that have been historically excluded or underrepresented, such as women and minorities.”www.ncsl.org. (2014). http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/affirmative-action-overview.aspx
In an effort to accuse Texas University at Austin of not following policies implemented by affirmative action history or court decisions such as The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment and Gratz v. Bollinger case in 1996, two Caucasian students applied for the University of Texas and were not admitted. The University of Texas had a top 10 percent policy that allowed admission to students, regardless of race, if they graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school class. Neither of the plaintiffs were in the top ten percent. Fisher was only the top 12 percent. She felt like she was not protected under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. In addition to the affirmative action laws for higher education, the University of Texas allowed students below the top 10 percent to be admitted based on a Personal achievement index, which included race. Fisher was not admitted under the Personal achievement Index either. Basically her complaint was that if race had not been a factor on the personal achievement index, she would have been admitted. In layman’s terms, if she would have been African American or Latino, she would have been admitted.
The Court decided that the University of Texas up held constitutionality with the admissions of students based on the top 10 percent. Furthermore, the University of Texas had additional affirmative action policies with the personal achievement index. The court ruled that the university was being fair in its policies to achieve academic diversity. Fisher’s case was taken to the 5th Circuit of the Court of Appeals and the ruling stood in favor of the University of Texas.
What does this mean for:
Students: - Upon graduation from public high schools, entities of higher education cannot legally discriminate against race for admissions. - Realizing that education is supposed to be an equalizer. Teachers: - Teachers can educate their students of all races assuring they will be treated equally. - Teachers can educate their students of the laws that protect them from being discriminated against after high school graduation. Education: - There will be more racially diverse people entering the job force, therefore allowing for more diverse educators. - Allows a shift in the view of America toward education.
Fisher Vs. University of Texas (2013) court decision dates back to the Affirmative Action Plan put into place in the 1960’s during the Civil Rights Movement. Specifically, affirmative action for higher education suggests that “admission policies that provide equal access to education for those groups that have been historically excluded or underrepresented, such as women and minorities.”www.ncsl.org. (2014). http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/affirmative-action-overview.aspx
In an effort to accuse Texas University at Austin of not following policies implemented by affirmative action history or court decisions such as The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment and Gratz v. Bollinger case in 1996, two Caucasian students applied for the University of Texas and were not admitted. The University of Texas had a top 10 percent policy that allowed admission to students, regardless of race, if they graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school class. Neither of the plaintiffs were in the top ten percent. Fisher was only the top 12 percent. She felt like she was not protected under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. In addition to the affirmative action laws for higher education, the University of Texas allowed students below the top 10 percent to be admitted based on a Personal achievement index, which included race. Fisher was not admitted under the Personal achievement Index either. Basically her complaint was that if race had not been a factor on the personal achievement index, she would have been admitted. In layman’s terms, if she would have been African American or Latino, she would have been admitted.
The Court decided that the University of Texas up held constitutionality with the admissions of students based on the top 10 percent. Furthermore, the University of Texas had additional affirmative action policies with the personal achievement index. The court ruled that the university was being fair in its policies to achieve academic diversity. Fisher’s case was taken to the 5th Circuit of the Court of Appeals and the ruling stood in favor of the University of Texas.
What does this mean for:
Students:
- Upon graduation from public high schools, entities of higher education cannot legally discriminate against race for admissions.
- Realizing that education is supposed to be an equalizer.
Teachers:
- Teachers can educate their students of all races assuring they will be treated equally.
- Teachers can educate their students of the laws that protect them from being discriminated against after high school graduation.
Education:
- There will be more racially diverse people entering the job force, therefore allowing for more diverse educators.
- Allows a shift in the view of America toward education.
References
Rein, B. W. (Speakers). (n.d.). []. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_345/more
(2012, October 10 ). Fisher vs. University of Texas- background [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cryI144dRm0
www.ncsl.org. (2014). http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/affirmative-action-overview.aspx
Affirmative Action/Overview. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/affirmative-action-overview.aspx
OYEZ IIt Chicago-Kent School of Law. (2012). FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_345