Write the Opinion – Fisher v. University of Texas (200 Points)
Pretend you are the Justices of the Supreme Court. Vote as a class how this case should be decided, and write an opinion discussing how this case should be resolved. If your classmates do not all agree, write concurring and dissenting opinions to explore all of your different understandings of the case. Each opinion should be at least 250 words, and reference the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and at least three of the cases listed in the Relevant Precedents section.
In Favor of Petitioner: 2
In Favor of Respondent: 4
The Equal Protection Clause states, “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 dreside. 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.”
For Petitioner Argument: The girl applying to the University of Texas did not appear to have anything wrong with her. A college, especially a state college like the University of Texas, has no right to turn anyone away because of race. The college wants an “ethnically diverse campus”, well having one more white person will not make any difference and if this is the true reason the girl was turned down then the college is definitely in danger of being accused for disobeying the 14th amendment of The Equal Protection Clause. Therefore, what right does the University of Texas have to turn this girl away? The University of Texas said that they did consider her race, but according to the Court of Appeals it was “narrowly tailored” to meet the schools interest of trying to promote racial diversity on campus. Either way this is still using race to make the official decision, which is unconstitutional.
For Respondent Argument: The University of Texas seems like the bad guy in this case. But, under further investigation and search it seems like they are doing the right thing. Who’s to say that this girl (since proven to be under the top 10% of her class) is not involved, and maybe not as motivated as other students that were accepted below the academic requirements. There are many other students who are not accepted every year at The University of Texas, why should she be treated any different?
I think the court should side with fisher and be equal to all races. It would settle the case and hopefully make people of other diversities to apply for the job. My advising to your ruling would rule with fisher because it shows that diversity doesn’t matter, and anyone should be allowed to work in a certain occupation due to their skills and not their skin color.Write the Opinion – Fisher v. University of Texas (200 Points)
In the Supreme Court Cast of Fisher v. University of Texas the Court has decided to vote in favor of Fischer.
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourth Amendment it states that all persons are subject to the jurisdiction of the United State and no person shall be denied rights or privileges. And no state is able to make a law that violates a no person shall be denied rights or privileges. Meaning all persons of the United States are considered to be equal.
This case shows that the University of Texas denied Fisher admittance into the University because of her race. And that the school making a decision whether or not to admit a student based largely on their race and not their academics as well as having a quota for a admitting a certain number of persons of a race is unconstitutional.
In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke the court upheld the previous decisions that the Davis Medical School violated the Equal Protection Clause because it had created a “quota system”, requiring it to have so many students of a different race admitted. In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. The court said the schools violated the Equal Protection Clause because the most important factor in admitting a student was based on their race. And in Ricci v. Destefano the court declared that because the applicants did outscore the other on the tests and were not admitted solely due to their race, it was also violating the Equal Protection Clause.
Concurring: Fisher not being accepted to the University of Texas goes against her Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment stating that 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. Fisher was denied addmission because of her race, and this goes against her Equal Protection Clause. Such as in University of California v. Bakke, the 5-4 majority said that this case went against the Fourteenth Amendment because the process application saved 16 out of 100 places for students of minority. In Parents Involved In Community School v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, students were allowed to choose what school they wanted to apply to. The more popular schools get to choose their top student’s, with one of their main decision factors being the students race. Chief Justice Roberts stated that this goes against the Equal Protection Clause, because there main goal was to have racial diversity compared to holistic “diversity in higher education.” Also in the case from 2009, Ricci v. DeStefano, firefighters were given promotions due to their race. This Court ruled that the work place should be a place free of discrimination. It is not fair to have two students, one white and one hispanic, with the same test scores but one be accepted because they are part of a minority. Colleges should look at the students achievements and base it solely on academics and after school involvement and not on the students race.Fisher v. U of Texas
I think that the Justices will vote that this is unconstitutional. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. They created a quota by accepting sixteen out of hundred spots for minorities. They said that they can use the minority part for other reasons, like to increase the minority percent on campus, but can not use it for considering the applicant and their decision into the University. This relates to the Fisher v. University of Texas because this was the same problem. The problem Fisher had was not getting accepted because of her race. And that is exactly what the University of Texas was doing. If the Justices voted in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) that rule was unconstitutional, then I do believe that they will vote the same for Fisher v. University of Texas. I think that if they do not rule this unconstitutional then they are going against their word from their previous ruling. The cases are so similar that they should be ruled the same. Also the Supreme Court should of made this decision for all of the Universities around the nation. Because if they did they would not be having this problem. It could also help future cases and even help the students applying have a better chance getting accepted into the school. This decision will help make even less conflict in the future I think.My Opinion on Fisher v. University of Texas
Fisher v. University of Texas presents the case of a girl named Abigail Fischer asking the question if a university is permitted to use race as a factor when making undergraduate admissions decisions. My Opinion on the case is that racism should not be a factor in the college acceptance process; I understand that colleges want to be diverse but we shouldn’t discriminate. The Fourteenth states “…No States 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.” I think that it is unconstitutional to base acceptance or base anything off of race. Race is simply just a color no one is better than the other race, why should we use it as a factor in accepting someone to a college? In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke a school saved 16 out of 100 spots for incoming students of minority. I think that is wrong to set out a certain amount of spots for people of a different race, I think they should just use the 100 spots and not have race become a factor. In Grutter v. Bollinger weigh the application process based on the students race. I think that it is unconstitutional and race should be put as a weight on in application. In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 it used race as one of the biggest factors in allowing which students could go to school at the popular school choice in the community, it is unconstitutional to use race as a factor is being accepted into a school. All these cases are similar in that people’s equal protection clause is being violated by being turned away from schools because of their race, and this to me is unconstitutional.Fisher v. University of Texas
After hearing both sides of the case, the Supreme Court took a vote, with the majority of the votes favoriting towards The University of Texas at Austin. Taking Abigail Fisher’s into play, the votes were still for the respondent. Fisher believes the University had not admitted her because of her race, which means that violates her 14th amendment. The 14 amendment states: “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.” As a court, we used past cases to help with our decision. We really aimed at two cases, Grutter v. Bollinger and Ricci v. DeStefano. Both cases were similar to this case. All and all, as s Supreme Court, we would like to address that we are in favor of The University of Texas at Austin.
Abigail Fisher, a white high school student from Sugar Land, Texas, was hoping to attend The University of Texas at Austin for college. After applying, she learned she had been rejected admission into the University. To her full belief, she was rejected because of her race. As a Supreme Court we allowed to see the case. We took into consideration if her 14th amendment was being violated, at the end of the 14th amendment it states: “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If Fisher’s 14th amendment is being violated that is unconstitutional, we review past court cases to help with our decision. The University describes their use of race in the admissions process as “highly individualized and modest,” and points out that they have set no target for minority admissions. We looked at Ricci v. DeStefano case. Firefighters believed they were denied promotion due to their race. 19 whites and 1 hispanic were involved in the case, the fire station decided no promotions would be given out so no one feels their amendments were being violated. We also looked at Grutter v. Bollinger because the University asked for race on the application to ensure diversity in the University. Lastly, we took the time to learn the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case. The University saved a small fraction of applicants spots so there was diversity. The case stated: “the school may use the applicant’s race as a consideration on other ways because the school has a compelling interest in encouraging diversity in its student body.” These cases are all in favor of the respondent. As a court, we have made the decision that The University of Texas at Austin has not violated Abigail Fisher’s 14th amendment. Therefore, we are ruling in the University’s favor in a 5-4 vote.The Opinion
In the case Fisher v . University of Texas the respondent claimed that the Defendant, which was the University of Texas, were violating their Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural due process and equal protection under the law, when she was rejected from the school. Fisher applied to the University of Texas but was rejected. Fisher argues that the University is denying her admission on the basis of her race, and therefore did not receive equal protection under the law of the Fourteenth Amendment. To help prove her point she mentions the case Grutter v. Bollinger which the court upheld in 2003. The respondent, argues that the program that they have conforms the standard sets in cases like Grutter v. Bollinger. The University says that their use of race in an admissions process is “highly individualized and modest”. The school does admit though that racial diversity is a priority, but that many other factors play into the decision whether a student will be admitted in or not. In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. The schools decision was based mostly on the students race in order to give diversity. The question before the court was, is a University allowed to use race as a factor when making undergraduate admission decisions?
The court finds that the University of Texas was not being constitutional when rejecting Fisher form being admitted into the University of Texas. Although University’s should have a diverse campus, they should not look at race when making a decision for an admission into a school. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke the court said they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by creating an application process where 16 spots were reserved for minority candidates. University of Texas is doing this when ensuring automatic acceptance to students who were in the top ten percent of their high school class.