harlan logo

Fisher V. Texas

February 19th, 2013

Cases Mentioned
Fisher V. Texas, Statement of Argument, Argument
Grutter V. Bollinger, Argument
Hopwood V. Texas, Statement of Argument
Regents of the University of California V. Bakke, Argument
Sweatt V. Painter
Statement of Argument
University of Texas, Austin has fought with racial oppression of minorities, seeing this as their history they have over the years tried to fix their past mistakes. When Sweatt v. Painter came to the court, the supreme court made “separate but equal”, unjust. After this monumental case allowing a black man to attend the law school of University of Texas, they have tried to correct their mistakes and create a more diverse campus. In order to fix these mistakes in their past they have set up the system to use the applicants high school rank, SAT and ACT scores, high school curriculum taught, along with placing  race into consideration. With this there has been an increased amount of diversity.  Due to race being weighed into heavy consideration it was considered to be  unconstitutional by the court case of Hoopwood v. Texas. In result to this they took another look at their admission and revised it so that education would play its part. As the years went on there was a huge decline in minority students during the admission process. The top 10% stigma undermined the University’s efforts to achieve diversity. In this effort they needed to consider all different types of factors including race but not solely. In Fisher v. Texas it is clear that Texas has the right to use the factors they want to admit upcoming students, with a reasonable degree. The creation of affirmative action was enacted to create a more diverse and equal opportunity society that had long been racially divided. Now of “separate but equal” the key word being equal , higher education were now responsible for allowing minorities the right to these same opportunities as the majority. However, race was not the only sole thing to be considered. Students who were admitted to feel the racial quota to the higher education they sought must fulfill the institutions set and stone minimum requirements to even be considered for admissions. Ms. Fisher did not have the intelligence to be entered into this college because she did not have an appropriate SAT score as well she had a very low GPA. University of Texas has a public quota to allow the top 10% into their school. This and several other factors is something Ms. Fisher failed to meet. This case is a mockery of the courts. This woman applied to a college that she thought she was seemingly entitled to get her education from, and they denied her because she did not meet their requirements. Ms. Fisher has fail to acknowledge the blatant fact that she was not up to par with this institutions standards. Even disregarding the affirmative action quota she would have still not received an education at this institution. With not being able to meet these requirements she had decided to blame this on one factor involving admitting students, which is race. She is applying that a system that has been in effect is producing a prejudice and placing a disadvantage on people like her.The 14th amendment is not color-blind. Meaning that representation of each nationality if allotted to the higher institution should be considered and represented. However, those who are representing their nationality will be the most equipped and qualified. Ms. Fisher was not up to par.
In the case Regents of the University of California V. Bakke, the courts ruled that to set aside special admission or to give a special spot for a specific race is unconstitutional. At this school they were assuring admission to specific races unlike the idea of considering race. Meaning that a University can not set a quota for a “x” amount of students for a certain race or deny entrance based on race.And with this court case, University of Texas had revised their review of admission, and are parallel to the ruling of this case. The University had “competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin” to give students to ability to have a wide exposure to ideas.  For some time now the 14th amendment has not been color-blind. In the Grutter V. Bollinger case Sandra Day O’Connor had stated that it “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admission decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” In this sense she agrees with the idea that a diverse campus benefits the educational development of students. The 14th amendment should not be used in the sense of being admitted into school. Texas is trying for a racially diverse higher education school. As both the lower courts agree that the university has the right to use race in their admission process because it is “’narrowly tailored’ to meet the school’s ‘compelling interest’ to promote diversity on campus”. With Ms. Fisher’s grades she would not have gotten to the position to be denied because of race because her prior education was not good enough. Fishers idea of the top ten percent already creating enough racial diversity is irrelevant, the top ten percent allows to those for high intelligence to have automatic admission to contain racial diversity. Mr. Fisher had an SAT score of 1180 out of 1600 and a total GPA of 3.59, and because l did not reside in the top 10% she did not have automatic admission and was subject to review by the university. She was also denied to a summer program which offered admission to some applicants who were denied admission to fall class. Her PAI score was too low. People of different race were also denied admission if they had the same score or higher were denied, and some with less were admitted, also there was a number of white people that were admitted that either had the same score or lower. The school does not solely base their decision on race due to the fact that she did not meet the guaranteed admission University statement her application and educational background was reviewed by the admissions office just like everyone else’s. She was not the only Caucasian descent denied entrance and in the same sense not all minorities were accepted just because they are minorities. The minimum requirement is just a bases to be considered and naturally a competitive University would most likely pick the students who exceeded the expectations they have set. Sure as the top 12% of her high school she may have thought that she would have received acceptance   University of Texas ,once again a competitive school is seeking the best of the best to represent their school.  Ms. Fisher failed to meet even minimum requirements. Race is not a huge factor for the university it is only a helping factor, and is only factored in individual fashion. And that coupled with race there are factors such as geographic diversity, socioeconomic diversity , cultural diversity and etc. However even with these facts considered these applicant still must meet minimum requirements. And this process is not only subjected to minorities, majority circumstances are also considered. The ideas behind this case are amazing.
The view point that I have to agree with that this result will effect our economy that it is an economic outcome. Several people that have different backgrounds come together they can create new ideas, create new knowledge. Without this it would make our leaders no more, this is the future of our America and what we want for our future. To speak more in depth about the top ten percent rule, it allows automatic admission to the top ten percent. This top ten percent does not rely on race, gender, area, nothing, it is simply the persons rank. The people that do not make top ten percent still have a chance to gain admission into. Texas school, but race applies to this review they are subjected to unlike automatic admission. One of the several reasons that UT along with other Texas schools go along with the  prevent is because it has a high education advantage. They also strive for not only racial diversity but for intelligent diversity. With the review that is in place it comes to the fact that even some minorities have a higher SAT score or have a better PAI. Although ace was added to review, it was parallel to the ruling in Grutter and Bakke. The petitioner inclines that Texas is trying to achieve racial balance but they are simply trying to represent Texas its self. Considering of race does not predominate the review, but plays a small role in a deciding factor. UT has clearly explained that on there campus they are trying to achieve diversity not because of number or because it make them look good to the public, but to enrich there students mind by giving them different points of views and allowing them to feed off not only the knowledge of the teacher but to learn form other students through different backgrounds. A main focus and ideal place in order of this to happen is to target the classrooms, this is the room in which ideas flow, and knowledge happens. But not only do they want this for the classroom they also want this for the student body, allowing all of the students to be touched and to be able to learn from racial diversity. The reason this is as important as it is to be racial diverse is because it is educational beneficial. Now as this sounds good on paper we are not a hundred percent sure that this will happen it is the fact that we give the students the benefit to learn from it in the first place. UT has the compelling interest of all the minorities not just a specific race giving it favor. Even thought the asian-american race has had better admission there is not favorite among these races that are at hand. Throughout America history as a whole we have had racial separation issues as well as discrimination against minorities because of  their culture, color of skin, or back ground. Over the years passed several Texas school have gone to court over the issue of african-americans being allowed  to attend UT, but after every case and every racial review issue even outside of the university of Texas they have revised and redo there review with the applicants that do not meet the automatic admission. Ms. Fisher challenging this issue over race being to heavy in the review period or the top 10% lending to much racial preference to minorities is serious, and will be decided in the highest court. Under the 14th amendment the equal protect clause protects equality, and the way UT does there admission protects the academically inclined and the under social class of America. People that apply to this school are getting subjected to a constitutional review it is the students that have to sit back and see if they are eligible for said school. And more then just UT agrees. Racial consideration does wonders for the education of the students as well as for the teachers and future leaders of our America.
In conclusion UT has stayed within legal bounds to let race apply as a small factor of deciding admission  to other court cases. UT used race as one of several factors such as environment, education, GPA, rank and PAI, to deny or allow students to attend UT. You are subjected to this if you do not meet the automatic admission by the top ten percent. Also the top ten percent does not aid in the racial diversity the way the review does. But the racial diversity is needed to proved a more free flowing area and a place where new ideas and come from and new knowledge can be born.  The 14th amendment is not colorblind. But the 14th amendment is fair! The judgement of the court of appeals should be upheld because of the above response.