The Court is now overseeing the case of Fisher vs. Texas over the Affirmation Act and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The University of Texas at Austin has been using race as a factor for the admissions process and Fisher has come to believe it diminished her chances of going to the school. The Affirmative Action Act is used to eliminate discrimination due to race and other variables. By using race as a variable to be admitted into their University, Texas has committed an unconstitutional policy because it breaks the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause states equal privileges for all United States citizens.
The affirmative action act is the policy designed to help eliminate discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in areas such as: businesses, education, and employment. Affirmative action was originally used to help the ongoing battle against racism towards African Americans. However, the term affirmative action was first used in President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 Executive Order 10925 which required “federal contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that the employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” ” In 1967 Lyndon Johnson expanded his executive order 11246 (the equivalent of Kennedy’s executive order) to include affirmative action to benefit women (Sykes). Fisher vs. The University of Texas at Austin is a case that centers on colleges using race in their admission decisions. The plaintiff is Abigail Fisher from Sugar Land, Texas. In 2008 Ms. Fisher applied as an undergraduate applicant to the University of Texas at Austin and was denied. She did not qualify for the schools automatic entry under the state’s “Top 10 Percent Plan,” which guarantees admission to any Texas college for students who graduate in the top ten percentile of their class. The university noticed differences of diverse races in their undergraduate population and decided to adjust its “race-neutral” admissions policy (Oyez). The adjustment stated that the university would admit all the in state- students that graduated in the top ten percentile of their class, but for the rest of the in-state population the university would consider their race. The plaintiff, who is white, is accusing the university of illegally discriminating against her. Fisher believes this violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under law. Also, it states “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 ”(Cornell). The case of Grutter vs. Bollinger is very similar to Fisher vs. Texas. Grutter vs. Bollinger 1997 was a case about a student, Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan who applied for the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter had a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and an LSAT score of 161 and was denied admission (Caplan). The university openly admitted to using race as a factor in their admission decisions because it will help create a diverse environment. The Supreme Court had a split 5-4 opinion that stated “The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admission decisions to further compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body” (Oyez). The Court agreed that since the Law School administers an individual review of each possible student, that the factor of race is not the only variable that stops an applicant from getting accepted or rejected. In the Court’s eyes the university looks at other variables that mean more than just race that gives the school the diversity it needs. Justice O'Connor wrote, "in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race- conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants” (Oyez). Even with the ruling from Grutter vs. Bollinger using race as an admission variable is unjustified. How could we be absolutely positive the colleges are only looking at race as a diminutive variable? Imagine two applicants, one white and the other Hispanic. Both applicants have done sports, shown leadership skills with their extra-curricular activities, and had a 3.8 GPA. Unfortunately there is only one more spot, therefore the Hispanic applicants gets it because of their race. Even if it affects one applicant, using race as a variable diminishes the chances of a non-minority race student of getting accepted to their dream school. The Equal Protection Act states that no law should “abridge the privileges of a United States citizen” (Caplan). The privilege of going to a good college and losing it due to your race is unjustified. Other Supreme Court Justices may not agree because the ruling in the Grutter vs. Bollinger case. Even if it affects a minuscule number of applicants, it is still against their rights. However, the Supreme Court has become more conservative and adverse towards racial preferences than it was in 2003 (Caplan). If the majority opinion is in favor of Ms. Fisher, then the court may take away Texas’ policies for racial admission. This will negatively impact The University of Texas at Austin, but the admissions guideline can now focus on other variables, therefore it should not harm the school dramatically. However, there is a chance the court may hold this to a nation standard and rule that all colleges must reject all race-conscious admission policies. If the majority opinion is for The University of Texas at Austin, then the only backlash would be that Ms. Fisher does not receive her $100 application fee back. Fisher has already graduated from the University of Louisiana, therefore losing the case would not hurt her educationally (Caplan). Also, if the court is to side with Austin, then many students can be excluded from the school due to race. In conclusion, the Supreme Court will determine if the University of Texas at Austin’s admissions process, that considers race as a factor is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. If the court favors in Fisher’s argument it could change the way of the whole nation’s admissions process. This case will be significant for university admission policies and racial demographics for colleges across the United States.

Sources * Caplan, Lincoln. "SUNDAY OBSERVER; Colleges Value Diversity, But Will the Court?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 07 Oct. 2012. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. * "GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER." Grutter v. Bollinger. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. * Santoro, Thomas, and Stephen Wirth. "Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (11-345)." LII. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. * Sherman, Mark. "Fisher v. University of Texas: Supreme Court Takes Up Affirmative Action." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. * Sykes, Marquita. "The Origins of Affirmative Action." The Origins of Affirmative Action. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2013.

Fisher vs. Texas and the Affirmative Action Policy

Jasmine Randolph

Professor Aleman

March 28, 2013

Pol 101-013