Approves Fisher: 5
Disapproves Fisher: 7
As Justice of the Supreme Court, we resolve this case to be disapproved relating to the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”.
The petitioner, Abigail Fisher of Sugar Land, Texas, sues University of Texas for rejecting her in enrollment. Fisher’s claim refers to affirmative action plans which help minority students, along with being questioned are the rules of “top 10%”, the fourteenth amendment, and the question of race when schools choose through applications. One case to keep in mind in comparison with Fisher vs. University of Texas is the Grutter vs. Bollinger case of 2003. The similarities to pull: University of Texas and the University of Michigan Law both strive for diversity in their campuses. Both schools do not violate the Equal Protection Clause when using race in question; by not having a quota to follow and not having a “narrow-tailored” rule set when choosing enrollment. Fisher uses the fourteenth amendment to support her claim, saying that she was denied her right as a legal American to “equal protection of the laws” -quote from the constitution-, or to attend the University of Texas.
The respondent, University of Texas, states in defense their admission programs conform to the same standards when comparing this case to the Bakke and Grutter cases of 1978 (California vs. Bakke) and 2003 (Grutter vs. Bollinger), having diversity as a “major priority” but no distinguished quota. The University does use the state’s “top 10%” rule for students; the top ten percent of students in each graduating class automatically can admit to any school in the state. Though, along with Fisher, students that are not of the top ten percent may still apply but have race in question when looking through applications.
I myself disapprove with Fisher. Her points of the constitution are correct, but in no way can we hold fact that Fisher was rejected only because of race being questioned. Yes, this question may have been asked, since she was not of the top ten percent in her graduating class. But other questions may have been asked and answered in her application; such as grades, student attendance, participation of activities, community support, etc. I myself hold the question; why do we have to question having diversity in our schools? Why can we not enroll students who fit the criteria, no matter what race? Why is race even questioned anymore? In the fourteenth amendment, we read: –“All persons born or naturalized in the United States (minority or majority group within the states), and subject to the jurisdiction there of, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State (including Texas) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States (Equal Protection Clause to help minorities); nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (Fisher may have been denied to enroll to the University of Texas because of her race when using the Equal Protection Clause).”. This case should be disapproved because of the lack of evidence we have to prove that race was in question only, for Fisher against the University of Texas. I ask what is being questioned when looking at the term, race. Race is defined as a major division of humankind having distinct physical characteristics. We look at this definition and apply it automatically to skin. If the definition talks about characteristics, shouldn’t we be questioning what their eye or hair color as well? They are distinct characteristics that are different throughout the world. Then you have to take into consideration if Ms. Fisher is a worthy student. As a University of Texas guidance counselor or faculty member looking through applications, finding Ms. Abigail Fisher’s, I would like to know who Abigail Fisher is. Is she an outstanding student that should be part of my school? Is she a talented young person in a certain curriculum or extra-curriculum to where we should ask for her? Is she a good citizen who respects the law, codes of conduct, and will follow the rules of the University of Texas; being a good, active citizen of Austin, Texas? These questions were more than likely asked by the counselor, deciding whether to let Fisher in. Therefore, the case should be disapproved and dismissed.
Fisher v. Texas OpinionJanuary 25th, 2013