harlan logo
Amicus Brief

D.M.
Interest
I am the director of admissions at my university and I have good reason to want to promote the following ruling in this case. I have first hand experience at dealing with admissions and diversity on campus, and I believe that diversity is something worthy of being promoted on campus, and this court should rule affirmative action as constitutional.
Summary of Argument
The court should rule that no, Fisher’s rights were not violated because if the court were to rule that Fisher’s rights were violated, public universities would see various negative effects. The court should also rule that if a university wants to bring diversity with race, then other ways of making diversity must be used as well.
Argument
1) IF THE COURT WERE TO RULE THAT FISHER’S RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, THEN THIS WOULD BRING AN END TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND THUS BRING LESS DIVERSITY INTO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
a)It is important to have diversity in universities because it brings positive effects to the individual students. Part of getting students ready for the real world is exposing them to different conditions than they are used to. We must work to help end stereotyping across our country and the way to do that is to prove stereotypes are wrong with exposure to different races. This is not only a good thing in general, but for the individual, stereotyping can be a way of falsely believing that one is superior to another simply because of race.
b)In order to keep the system more fair, the court should rule that race must be one of many factors in the admissions process, which the court has already done in Bakke and Grutter. By having race be one of many factors, it ensures that there is at least more diversity within universities, but still makes sure that those who actually deserve to get in, will still get in. Because having race as one of many factors is clearly the superior way to run the admissions process and has also been going on for decades already, the court should rule to keep the system that has been in place.
2) THE COURT SHOULD RULE THAT RACE CAN NOT BE THE ONLY FACTOR IN CONSIDERING DIVERSITY.
While racial diversity is something that should be favored in the admissions process, race is not the only way of ensuring diversity. Diversity extends beyond just race and goes into religious affiliation, economic background, sexual orientation, and many other factors. Ending stereotypes should be something that should not be going on in only race, but in these other areas as well. Students do not need to have false thoughts based on all of these factors, so having a diverse student body in these areas as well, will bring great benefit to the individual students.
In order for the court to make sure these other factors are considered, the court should rule that diversity extends beyond race and goes into all of the categories previously mentioned. The court should rule that if a university is going to use affirmative action, it must use more than one factor when doing so. This action will help to end stereotyping within our society and help to create more tolerant people.
Already, UT Austin uses the process of holistic review where the applicants are essentially weighed on factors of diversity other than just race, they look at economic background, extracurriculars, etc. and this process helps to bring a more diverse student body, which, in turn, brings benefits to the students. The system UT and other universities use is already successful in making a more diverse body, so the court should make the previously stated ruling in order to bring the best possible benefit to the students.