Hello, I am the director of admissions at a public university. I am going to talk to you about our recent problems. When most people think about diversity they think about race. when I think about Diversity I think abut all of the other things. I look more many different diverse things in my students. Here are a few examples. First there is of course a difference in sex it would be better to have a balanced student body of males and females. Second of all there is a religious stand point. When it comes to getting applicants into your college you need to think about what kind of religions they are in to. There are certain colleges that are christian colleges that have a church on campus for worship a couple times a week. You have to consider how someone would be treated if they are in another religion. And lastly there are people with less money and you need to take into account that not everyone has just enough money for college and you need to decide wether to accept them and help them or tell them to make some money.Response to : Amicus Brief Badge Fisher v. University of Texas
Race and sexual orientation are common deciding factors in today’s society. Many individuals are not given a chance to show their academic skills, for most schools and businesses want to be diverse. If the individual’s personal information was unknown, would the outcome change? This information should not be available to businesses or schools. The schools and businesses should look at academics more than race and sexual orientation.
In the case Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, a group of children were spread throughout three schools. The district used the childrens’ race as a deciding factor for which school they would be put in. How is that fair? It is not. Race may be an easy way to make a decision “easier” in certain situations, but race should not be a reason to segregate one individual from another. Diversity may be important, but if race wasn’t even a factor there would not be as much controversy about it. Diversity will just come by itself.
Race is such a small part of the whole individual. Other factors, such as top 10% in your class, should be of more importance than personal information. In the case Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice O’Connor mentions, “25 years (after this case), the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” Knowing that choosing upon race is unconstitutional the justice promotes the idea that race will no longer be an issue after the case is done. Bringing up this concept allows others to think about how important this factor should be with acceptance to a school to promotions in a work place.
Making a diverse environment has clouded the judgement of acceptance. In the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case, the Medical School reserved 16 out of 100 spots for minority candidates. Making the conclusion that even if 16 non-minority candidates were better choices, they would not get a spot, because the college needed to be diverse. Being diverse is important, but diversity will come by itself.
Abigail Fisher applied to the University of Texas, and she was not accepted. Soon after she was accepted to Louisiana State University. Abigail argues that she was not accepted due to her race. She doesn’t know that her race was the reason she did not get accepted, but she is arguing that if she was a minority she would have been accepted. In past cases that are similar to this case justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito ruled not constitutional. Concluding that the Supreme Court will ultimately rule this case as not constitutional.
Please let this letter serve as an Amicus Brief for the Supreme Court case of Fisher v. University of Texas. The question before the court today is whether or not race should be considered during the admissions process into colleges. As a director of admissions, it is important to ensure diversity on campus and throughout one’s college career. However, it must be done in a constitutional manner that will not infringe on other’s rights. Unfortunately, the process of affirmative action is exactly that. By allowing race to play as a determining factor in admissions, the United States is allowing discrimination to once again become prevalent throughout the nation.
To be “diverse” is defined as “to show a great deal of variety.” Diversity is applicable to many different aspects of one’s life. Economic background, religious affiliations, and sexual orientation all contribute to the goal of diversity. However, there is not one college in the country today who is using those criteria as a determining factor in the admissions process. There is no reason why race should be an exception. Racial diversity is just one of the many different kinds of diversity a college can experience. To allow racial backgrounds to be a factor in admitting potential students is unconstitutional. It is racial discrimination in the 21st century. This court held in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger that “substantial weight” should be placed on one’s race during the admissions process. As a director of admissions, it is vital that this precedent be repealed. Affirmative action is violating many individual’s constitutional rights. Because of this, we would ask that the court rule in the favor of Fisher.
Founded in 1978, Global Rights is a human rights capacity-building organization working in partnership with local activists in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to promote and protect the rights of marginalized populations. Through broad-based technical assistance and training, they strengthen partners to document and expose human rights abuses, conduct community outreach and mobilization, advocate for legal and policy reform, and provide legal and paralegal services.The work of Global Rights is motivated by their vision of a just society worldwide built on the fundamental principles of human rights. The critical forces for achieving deep-rooted and sustainable change in societies come from within each nation. Human rights cultures are built from the ground up. They focus on strategies that are essential to promoting, protecting, and fulfilling human rights such as documenting and exposing violations, conducting community education and mobilization, advocating legal and policy reform, using the courts on behalf of disadvantaged populations, and engaging the international community, including the United Nations and regional bodies. Global Rights is governed by a sixteen-member board of directors comprising senior lawyers, journalists, and academics and operated by a 60-member staff, two-thirds of whom work outside the United States. They have many files on the places they work in and the rights that need to be fixed. They don’t want to be recorded because they have information about cases that are waiting to be solved and if the information got into the wrong hands they would be in trouble and might be stopped and they need to fight for their cause.
Human Right Watch is one of the world’s leading independent organizations in effort to help defend and protect human rights. They hold people oppressors accountable for their crimes. They target advocacy to build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. They also challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights laws.
Human Rights Watch is a great opportunity for people who have been put into prison, for example, for a mass amount of time for no apparent reason to help them get out of the situation. These people are out there to help but if they are trying to keep people out of danger, the government can not barge in because of the privacy rules. The government may think that they are not giving away evidence but things sometimes slip through the cracks. This one time could end up costing someone’s life. The Human Rights Watch was made special for this reason so that information would not be let out for people to hear about. The American government does not need to know what is going on in someone’s life unless they are asked to. The information the Human Rights Watch is dealing with may not even be from the United States which is another reason government should not have any ties to it. Every person has a right to keep their information to themselves. The people working for Human Rights Watch were chosen for a reason, the government needs to let them do their job.
Abigail Fisher should not be denied acceptance because of her racial background, even if a more diverse student population on campus is something that the university is seeking. The diversity that the University of Texas needs is more religious affiliations, economic backgrounds, and sexual orientations. The university wants the students to interact with students of different backgrounds, but that still does not permit them the right to discriminate against Abigail Fisher and deny her acceptance for being white. That is just unconstitutional.From the Director of Admissions
As the director of a public university I wish to promote diversity in my school but I also wish to do this in a way that does not alienate any race. While I do want all different races, religions, economic backgrounds and sexual orientations to be represented I do believe that these aspects of a person should not be looked at when they are being considered for a specific school. Acceptance into a school should be based upon merit, I think that we should establish different scholarships that can be based upon some of those more personal aspects but an overall acceptance into the school should be based strictly on merit. There are also many other ways in which we can promote open mindedness and awareness of race, religion and different economic status. There are study abroad options, mission trips and many different experiences students can participate in. This ruling would greatly affect my university because I wish to give all students an equal chance of getting into my institution and I don’t wish to have ethnicity or anything else other than merit be the basis for acceptance. I believe that you should rule in favor of Fisher because she has a very valid case, if two students have the same academic scores race shouldn’t come into consideration activities and volunteer work should be the next aspect looked at. Fisher was denied access to the University of Florida because of her race and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. She faced racial discrimination and this should not be upheld under the law.University of Texas Amicus Brief
The University of Texas promotes racial diversity along with sexual diversity and different economic backgrounds. The University admits all students who are within the top 10 percent of their class and consider applications from all, even those who are below the 10 percent. All factors are taken into place including race and the University tries to keep their campus diversified. Now the campus doesn’t just keep it racially diversified but we try to factor in sexual diversity and economic backgrounds because we know that every person is not equal and we aim to treat every applicant and student as an equal person. Allowing every white applicant who is at the top of their class and very smart would allow some diversity, sexual diversity and economic background, but not of some racial diversity. Keeping diversity keeps the peace on campuses nationwide and allows those who may not be as fortunate to be equal and feel accepted.State of Florida Amicus Brief
The use of drug sniffing dogs as a law enforcement tool is of mandatory status. The uses they provide are endless and without them, their might be more drugs being grown, sold, and transported. In the case of Florida v. Jardines, the use of a drug dog on Jardines property without a warrant was not against his 4th amendment rights because the officers did not physically enter Jardines residence with the drug sniffing dog but simply walked the perimeter of Mr. Jardines property to indicate if in fact their was marijuana being grown inside the house of if their was any signs of marijuana being present on the property. The use of the drug sniffing dog in this case was very helpful. Humans are not physically capable to have the sense of smell that dogs do so in turn that is why the drug dog in this case was very helpful towards officers because of the dogs sense to be able to sniff out the drug. In the case of Illinois v. Caballes, Illinois state troopers pulled over Caballes for speeding on the highway. Well another responded to the call and also had a narcotics sniffing dog present. As the one trooper issued a warning towards Caballes, the other trooper and narcotics dog, signaled that their was drugs in the car. The troopers then searched his car and found marijuana in the trunk. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Illinois because the “sniff test” did not violate Caballes 4th amendment rights because it did not infringe of his constitutional protected privacy interests.Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Amicus Brief)
Please let this letter serve as an Amicus Brief for the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. The question before the Court is whether or not the United States government has the moral and political obligation to hear cases in the United States’ justice system where events took place outside of the United States’ jurisdiction. In this case, the Royal Dutch Petroleum company “assisted the Nigerian government in its human rights abuses by providing transportation, compensation, and shelter to soldiers that shot and killed civilians.” Kiobel is now attempting to have his case heard in the United States’ justice system.
The Respondent argues that corporations and companies cannot be considered “individuals” and therefore, they cannot be tried as such. They claim that only people inside of a company can be held responsible, not the company itself. However, this is inaccurate. In the United States’ government, companies are allowed the right to free speech, which is an individual’s right. It was outlined in the Constitution that this was a right to United States citizens, not companies and corporations. Due to the fact that these companies are given this right and treated as an individual entity, they should then be held responsible to all rules and regulations that apply to individuals. By aiding and abetting corrupt soldiers in Nigeria, these companies have contributed to the death of multiple innocent citizens. Due to the facts presented, as a friend of the Court, we would ask the Court to rule in favor of the Petitioner, Kiobel.
Please let this letter serve as an Amicus Brief in the case of Florida v. Jardines. The question before the court today is whether or not the use of drug-sniffing dogs without a warrant is constitutional. Joelis Jardines was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his house. When police brought a drug-detecting dog, it signaled that marijuana was present inside the residence. With this as their largest piece of evidence constituting “probable cause,” the police obtained a search warrant. Upon search of Jardines’ residence, marijuana was found and he was arrested.
To determine if this was done in a constitutional manner, the Court must look at the process the Florida police department used in order of obtaining the warrant. With not enough evidence to constitute probable cause, the Florida P.D. employed the use of a drug-dog to determine if drugs were present inside the residence. This Court held that in the case of Kyllo v. United States that “the use of sense-enhancing technology to obtain information about the inside of one’s home that could not otherwise be obtained without physical intrusion is a Fourth Amendment search.” The use of drug-detecting canines is exactly the same as the use of “sense-enhancing technology.” Evidence was gained that would not have otherwise been found without a physical intrusion. This means that the canine was a “Fourth Amendment search” and was done so without a warrant. This is a direct violation of Jardines’ constitutional rights as a United States citizen. As a friend of the Court, we believe that a search warrant should first be obtained before the use of drug-sniffing canines is allowed. Therefore, we would ask that the Court rule in favor of Jardines.