Anderson, of Centennial, and Parsons, of Liberty, won the nationwide Harlan Institute’s Virtual Supreme Court competition in which they had to write appellate briefs and argue against other student teams via online video chats presented before a panel of professional attorneys.

This year the case argued by the students was Fisher v. University of Texas, which is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court concerning an affirmative action admissions policy at the University of Texas at Austin.

Congratulations to the two winners from Frisco, Texas,  D.J. Anderson and Jason Parsons, who won a trip to ConSource’s Fifth Annual Capital City Constitution Day program.

Here is a video of the event:

More coverage from Frisco ISD, ConSource, and the Storm Lake Pilot Tribune.

Students from around the country submitted appellate briefs aimed at addressing the constitutional question – Is the Fourteenth Amendment color-blind? From the impressive briefs submitted as blog posts on the Harlan Institute’s FantasySCOTUS page (http://harlaninstitute.org/scoreboard/), legal experts at ConSource and the Harlan Institute selected the top brief-writing teams to participate in the oral argument round of the competition.

On Monday, April 22, 2013, students from the Frisco Career and Technical Education Center in Frisco, Texas competed in the championship oral argument round in front of a virtual bench of esteemed legal professionals. The judges included: Julie Silverbrook, Executive Director of ConSource; Josh Blackman, Harlan Institute President and South Texas College of Law professor; Tom Krattenmaker, former William & Mary Law School dean and clerk to Justice Harlan; and Matthew Fitzgerald, associate at McGuireWoods LLP and clerk to Justice Thomas.

The competing Frisco teams included seniors DJ Anderson and Jason Parson, as well as Derani Wiggins and Sarah Sietmann. Although the scores were incredibly close, the grand prize winners of the championship round were DJ Anderson and Jason Parson. Anderson and Parson will be flown to Washington, D.C. to participate in ConSource’s Fifth Annual Capital City Constitution Day program.

A video of the championship round is available here: http://youtu.be/rZl4yQ-2zlQ. Both teams of students should be commended for their excellent historical and legal research, writing, and oral argument skills.

Later in the day, another team of students from Frisco, as well as a team of students from Sioux Central High School in Sioux, Iowa competed in a non-advancing runner-up round. Again, the competition was very close, but the students from Frisco, Texas were able to prevail over their colleagues from Sioux Central High in Iowa.

All of the students and teachers who participated in the program should be applauded for their hard work and dedication. Mr. Benjamin Ewald of the Frisco CTE Center and Ms. Erin Olson of Sioux Central High School should be saluted for going above and beyond to prepare their students for the competition. Please join us in congratulating the participants and their wonderful teachers.

Information about the Inaugural Virtual Supreme Court Competition is available at: http://harlaninstitute.org/contests/virtual-supreme-court/,

http://harlaninstitute.org/2013/04/22/live-the-2013-harlan-institute-consource-virtual-supreme-court-competition-fisher-v-university-of-texas-austin/

Interested in coaching a team of students for the 2014 Virtual Supreme Court Competition? Email ConSource Executive Director Julie Silverbrook at

Julie.Silverbrook@consource.org or Harlan Institute President Josh Blackman atJBlackman@harlaninstitute.org.

Diversity vs. Discrimination

Racial consideration will always result in one of three things: one or more races will benefit while others will not, one or more races will be hindered while others will not, or specific races will benefit while others will be hindered. Thus, racial consideration should be used only under rare circumstances. The only situation race should be allowed to be used is for private organizations. If a private organization wants to be all one race, the government should not be able to interfere because the organization is private and should get to choose its own policies. This is not saying race should be used in this situation, just that the use of race should not be regulated by the government in this situation. Using race in any other situation should not be allowed because it always discriminates against a race.

For the most part, race should not be used for any reason. But when bystanders can be injured, race should be considered. Exceptions include airport security. Lone passengers tend to look more suspicious. Terrorist tend to act alone on behalf of a group, so if we can trace the nationality of the group, certain individuals can be more thoroughly searched. Carefully selecting individuals for a more thorough search can potentially save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.

On the contrary, race should in no way be used to select a person for a job or school. In order to create a race-blind society, it is necessary to avoid using race. With finding jobs and being accepted to schools becoming tougher, an extra boost from race can make the difference. Now is this really fair? Race is something that we personally can’t control, so giving someone a bonus for being a certain race is unconstitutional. All men are created equal, not some above others.

Now in to distinct areas it is clear to see when race should, and should not, be used. In terms of public safety, race should be inplemented. But when race becomes a game changing factor, it should be ignored.

However, when racial profiling is used carefully in specific situations, racial profiling’s benefits outweigh its risks. Airports security screenings are one example of an appropriate place for racial profiling. It is a fact that certain minorities have, in the past decade, been more involved in terrorist acts than others. In the interest of public safety, racial profiling could be used to help identify possible threats in airports. Of course, this would all have to be done with subtlety. Race can not be the only factor in choosing targets to watch, nor should it justify anything more than extra surveillance. When people start getting searched solely because of their race, a line is crossed, and the negatives of racial profiling outweigh the risks.