harlan logo
Response to- Standing to Sue

I believe that it really did not matter if she really got injured. She showed no injury. No physical injury. Maybe she was feeling emotionally injured. I believe she is not the only person that did not get accepted into this school. In her case she was not of such a high class like everyone else. I think if she would have not gone to a different college it would not have mattered. What did they want her to do just put her life on hold because she did not get into the college she wanted? She was not just going to stop her life until she got accepted. I see that she did not get injured, but her going to a different collage should not have affected the way she saw things.

Response to Standing to Sue Fisher v. Texas

There is no clear conclusion to the question on wether or not Abigail Fisher would have a stronger case if she would have attended another university due to the varying opinions and perspectives of this. Because Fisher was admitted into a university and able to pursue her undergraduate degree, you could say that because she was able to get into college her stance against Affirmative Action is weakened. On the contrary, Fisher could use this as an example to show that the University of Texas’ admissions program is the problem and not Affirmative Action.
In Fisher’s case, there is no evidence that it was her race that was the deciding factor in her acceptance into the college. There are many other factors that could have played a vital role in her denial from the college. Her essay could not have been up to par or she could have had a lower ACT grade than the other applicants. She does not have concrete evidence to make the statement that race was the factor. With the college not stating the reason for her denial, her stance against may be weaker. Without solid evidence that race was the reason she was rejected Fisher does not hold as strong of a case as she could.

Response to: Standing to Sue Fisher v. University of Texas

In order for Abigail Fisher to have standing to sue in U.S. courts, she is required to show that she was injured by the person she’s suing, that the defendant caused the injury, and that if the court ruled for the plaintiff her injury would be resolved.  When Abigail Fisher was denied acceptance into the University of Texas, and assumed it was because of her race, but she has seen no proof that this is true.
Just because race was taken into consideration when Abigail Fisher applied, it does not mean this is why she was not accepted.  The admissions of the University could have rejected her application for a number of reasons: she might not have had good enough grades, a high enough ACT score, or maybe her essay wasn’t satisfactory.
Fisher applied to the University of Louisiana and was accepted, and doesn’t plan on applying to the University of Texas again.  This shows that she was not injured by the  University, and therefore has no standing to sue.  She has no proof that race was the very reason she was denied acceptance, and she has suffered no injury of any kind, accept to her pride.  She would have a better standing to sue if she had not attended a university after her rejection of the University of Texas.

Response to: Friend of the court. Fisher v. University of Texas

As the director of admission of a public university, I believe that diversity will control itself and high standards are of the most importance of the university rather than ethnicity, sexual orientation, economic backgrounds, and religious affiliations. As it is called, the U.S. “melting pot” is becoming a more and more diverse society. In a case such as this, many of today’s citizens have been exposed to diversity within their home communities. Although I believe that diversity is good and needs to be established within public universities, I believe that, and have seen, diverse students work together and congregate within public universities. The purpose of attending a university is to learn and build your future through the best experience possible. The university should be more focused on their graduation and education standards quota and rather on their diverse and perfect quota where there are no majorities. In the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, I believe that Abigail Fisher’s denial of acceptance was corrupt due to her white ethnicity and preference was given to racially diverse candidates rather than that of their high school accomplishments. However, the University of Texas does maintain the right to deny any student that they believe does not meet the school’s compelling interests.

Response to Write the Opinion

Affirmative Action Opinion
 
Affirmative action is an on the fence subject. Some people think it is racists against whites, some people think it is a good thing. Affirmative action is an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, in relation to employment or education.
In my opinion, affirmative action is a bad idea. If you really want to get rid of discrimination take off the race, gender, and name check box. After they have done that just take the top ten percentile or the best applicants for the job or school. This will make a race differential normally, and this way you don’t cut out a perfectly good applicant, just like in the case of University of Texas v. Fisher.
In the case of University of Texas v Fisher, a white woman was rejected from going to the University of Texas because of her race. She was a perfectly good student, but did not score high enough on the point system that the affirmative action is. I think she can fight this and win.
 

Response to: Constitutional Law Badge

In the case of Fisher v. Texas University, Fisher is attempting to sue the University for affirmative action, or injury from rejection. Fisher does not have a valid case to make it any further in her case. She did not sustain an injury in any broad view, so there is no causation or redress ability. It was not sufficient to show injury after being rejected from the University, and she would have had a stronger case if she did not attend another school and pursue her undergraduate degree.
One can only wonder why Fisher got rejected from the school. Only the top ten percent in a graduating class from a state high school got accepted into the University of Texas without question. It is stated that Fisher was not in the top ten percent of the class, and so the university had the right to consider various factors to either accept or deny her application. She had been denied and is claiming to be a victim of racial profiling and she is protecting herself under the fourteenth amendment.
Fisher may have had a better causation of an injury if she had an injury. The University of Texas had the right to reject her and who is to say how many other races get accepted into the University. The University said that they do not have any quota for racial diversity although diversity is a major priority at the University. The fact is that the University also states that they are similar to the case of Grutter v. Bollinger. Their use of considering race is not a narrowly tailored process to ensure racial diversity but a program that considers it among many other factors to encourage racial diversity. There would be no redressability because there was not an injury and there was no causation.
Many people get rejected from the university, and the university has a valid system of considering candidates that are looking to attend their school. It was not sufficient for Fisher to show injury after being rejected from the school. Her case may have also been stronger if she did not complete her undergraduate degree at Louisiana  State University. It would not affect the case in a large part. She still would be in the same position she is in now but she just would not have her undergraduate degree. Since she was able to get into another state university it should show that there is no injury that occurred.
The three factors that the case needs to proceed are not sufficient or reasonable. Fisher has not sustained an injury from her rejection of the university, and to prove it she has completed her undergraduate degree in another state university. The University  of Texas had the right to either accept her or deny her attendance from many factors. Fisher was not in the top ten percent of her graduating class, therefore the university due to the top ten percent program was enabled to consider her in many ways. There is no causation of an injury because the University had a valid system of considerations. They do not use a quota system and they encourage racial diversity through their top ten percent program and other considerable factors. The university claims to have race considered among many other factors and not narrowly tailored for a specific number or minorities. The third factor in advancing the case is not present. Fisher was able to attend another university elsewhere and obtained an undergraduate degree so far. She does not have a case to advance any further in the court.
 

Response to: Civil Rights Badge Fisher v. University of Texas

The conflict between diversity and discrimination is a big one, especially in the case Fisher vs University of Texas. At UT, and any other state university, the top 10 percent of students at each high school are automatically admitted. But those who are not, such as Fisher, those in admissions are allowed to use racial backgrounds into account when accepting applicants. In this case, Texas University denied Fisher’s application to their college. Fisher believes that “because preference was given to racially diverse candidates” she was denied admission, and sued the school under the Equal Protection Clause. Fisher states that this was a discriminatory act, while others believe that it is constitutional because in the “real world” you must be able to live in an integrated society with many different races. But if racial profiling is illegal during law enforcement, in airports and on planes, and when making hiring decisions, how is racial profiling in schools any more justified? The easiest way to solve this controversy would simply be to treat everyone the same no matter their race or ethnicity, but that is an unrealistic dream. People are aways going to act prejudice and think that just because someone has a different skin color, they are going to act a certain way. Sadly, most people would admit they feel safer walking by a white man in a dark ally than a black man. In the case of Fisher vs University of Texas, the school’s attempt at diversifying their students was an act of racial profiling because they were giving more points to applicants who were from different ethnicities or races. For example, if the college received two applicants who were virtually the same, the minority applicant would be accepted. That is a form or racial profiling and should not be allowed.

Standing To Sue

I don’t think that it would’ve made the case stronger or weaker.  I think the fact that she wasn’t allowed in is a factor enough to sue on.  The damage done is by the college, and as a American in this country, we highly value education.  So when a college that she wanted to go to wouldn’t let her in because they already had all their spaces filled, injury had been inflicted upon her.  She was discriminated against in a sense of her academic skills by saying she wasn’t high enough to get in.
Going to college there might have given her a better advantage in the job work force with a degree from that school.  This is discriminating her right to the pursuit of happiness.  I believe that the world is balanced and colleges decided on people they let in based on the person accomplishments and that different races and religions are going to get in based on their merit if that what it was solely based on.  This way everyone gets a fair shot by their academic skills and then they shouldn’t even be looking at race or religion, and it will make this country more diverse in their thinking.

Response to: Diversity or Discrimination – Civil Rights Badge Fisher v. University of Texas

“If we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity,” spoken by John F. Kennedy at the American University Commencement Address in 1963 conceived of the ideology at this time period they may not diminish the differences, but we must advance forward to adjust the future. Today racial consideration should not depend on context of the situation, but rather justice is brought to each individual. Racial profiling, whether it is along the Southern border, in airports, or acceptance into a college should not determine the outcome, because racial profiling is a contribution to racism in the United States of America. Understanding the excuses for racial profiling reveals how degrading, disregarding, and wounding it can be to a minority. The United States of America is the “melting pot” of the world with a diversity of race, religion, creed, gender, and sexual orientation, and to racial profiling citizens of the United States of America creates barriers. However, if there is a social justice argument for treating racial profiling situations differently, we must see equality repetitively in every similar situation. A judge must consider subjective concepts of fairness and justice within every case, and treat similar cases with identical decisions. An example would be racial profiling at an airport; airports would have to profile everyone rather than selecting an individual based on their race or clothing. A judge would also need to see racism did not participate in the profiling, and each individual receives justice if racism was involved in the profiling. In today’s society we are slowly becoming colorblind, and in the future I aspire it holds not only to colorblindness, but less hatred and more peace.

Response to: Friend of the Court Fisher v. University of Texas

Today, college is something many set their sights on. Grades and good behavior are widely known to be important in order to be accepted. In fact, many would consider these to be the main priority colleges look for, and justly so. This, however, is not always the case. Colleges do not always look solely to your achievements in order to determine your acceptance, they also take your race into consideration.
In the case University of California vs. Bakke, the University was reserving spots only for minorities. The Supreme Court ruled this method of acceptance as unconstitutional but, “the school may use the applicant’s race as a consideration on other ways”.  A major part of college is to experience different cultures and interact in a diverse environment. Some believe the only way to ensure this is to include the racial question on all applications.  Universities, however, do not need to go out of their way to guarantee diversity.
If schools remove the question of race from applications, and accept students based entirely on their academic and personal achievements, the diversity in the schools will be inevitably attained. Millions of individuals apply to colleges each year. In fact, studies show that the number of students who apply to colleges has increased in many places. “73% of colleges across the country saw increases in the number of students applying to their institutions in 2010”, according to the National Association for College Admission Counseling report. The ethnic diversity and number of students from each ethnic group who apply must be profound. Due to these large numbers, the possibility of colleges not accepting a diverse group of ethnicities is extremely unlikely.
Asking college hopefuls their race to advance those colleges own gains is not what the 14th amendment was made to promote. Achievements of the individual should be the only thing considered when deciding who to accept into Universities.