Discover Top Posts Tagged with #kupcakequeen23100

Popular Recent

why hadn't we thought of this

#glossophiliqueer #kupcakequeen23100 #typicallymessy

I've been tagged by glossophiliqueer.

Rule 1: always post the rules.

Rule 2: answer the questions the person who tagged you has written and write at least 11 new ones

Rule 3: tag 11 new people and link them to your post

Rule 4: let them know you’ve tagged them

1. What is the thing you prefer about yourself? I like that I keep an open mind.

2. What is your favourite word or expression (whatever language)? I go through phases, right now I like the word Bubbles.

#kupcakequeen23100 #spanishcherryblossom #expertspoonbender #odinsblog #majeadams17 #lots-of-planets-have-a-north #blackjackchazzy #bluerea #theresarocksyoursocks #eisandoes #and-shelovedhim #text #questions #glossophiliqueer

My friends glossophiliqueer and kupcakequeen23100 and my parents came up to visit me for my birthday!

#gif #tsk #glossophiliqueer #kupcakequeen23100 #birthday

Fisher v. University of Texas: A Summary

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution includes the rights of the people to “equal protection under the law,” which means that all people have the right to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. It is because of this Amendment that the policy of affirmative action in admissions is under scrutiny. This Amendment was written with intention of giving black, and other minority citizens, who were, legally and socially, treated as unequal, their equal rights and in essence with the intention of erasing racism. Those who disapprove of the policy of affirmative action in admission processes point out that those policies are “reverse racism,” or racism towards white people.

In the Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger it was decided that these policies are permissible, as the institutions have a valid reason to want a certain amount of diversity in their campus population. The institutions argue that these diverse students provide different inputs in the classroom and in turn broaden the views of students of different backgrounds. Another held belief is that a diverse student body opens students up to what “real life” will be like, and that it is in the students' best interests to experience communication, team work, and life with others of different ethnicity than their own. They also argue that the past grievances against minorities, especially blacks, should be atoned through the admittance of minority students.

However, in the case Regents University of California v. Bakke , the admission program in question was deemed unconstitutional, because it operated on a policy that allowed a student's race to be a major determining factor. The also held a quota, where a certain number of spot were held for students of minority background. Where as in Grutter, the institution considered race as a minor factor in its admission policy. From Bakke the Supreme Court still allows admissions to use race as a “plus factor” but not as a major factor, and all quota's such as was in Grutter, are deemed unconstitutional.

In the case before us, Fisher v. University of Texas, the institution, University of Texas, operates on an admission process with several steps. Applicants were sorted into three different groups; Texas residents; domestic non-Texas residents; and international students. The applicants competed for admission with the other students in their group, while 90 percent of all seats were reserved for Texas residents. For Texas residents the students who finished in the top 10 percent of their high school graduating class were automatically admitted. This filled nearly 90 percent of the seats allotted to Texas residents in 2008 and is totally racially non-biased. After this applicants are admitted based on their Academic and Personal Achievement Indices. A students standardized test scores and high school class rank are put through a formula to get their Academic Index (AI), while the student's Personal Achievement Index (PAI) is based on three scores: scores from two required essays and one personal achievement score. Admission is granted with high scores in both Academic and Personal Achievement Indices.

After the 2003 Grutter decision, race became a factor, however minor, in student's PAIs. Race can only “tip the scale” if an applicant has sufficient scores. However, Fisher and Michalewicz sued UT arguing that the consideration of race in admissions violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.

In any case where race classifications are under investigation, the Court assesses it with the most stringent type of judicial review, called strict scrutiny, where not only must the institution have a reason for the classification, but it better have solid, unbreakable reason to hold that classification.

The court has held from Grutter that colleges and universities have that solid, unbreakable reason to consider race in admittance. Justice O'Connor in on Grutter stated, “obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body,” should be considered as justification.

Fisher disagrees, however; she believes that UT has brought no evidence to the table that suggests that diversity in the student body gives other students any benefits. Another argument she uses is that the number of minority students that are automatically admitted from the top 10 percent of their high school class has been growing enough to sustain a diverse population, thus eliminating the need for further use of race in the admission process. She also believes that the efforts to bring the Universities demographic to the level of that of the State's would have more negative effects, by pitting those students of different minorities against each other in competition for spots.

The university's rebuttal claims that Fishers arguments don't hold water. In Grutter there was no investigation as to whether or not a diverse student body has benefits, by following precedent, there should be no investigation in this case. While they do admit that there are many minority students getting in through the top 10 percent rule, the university claims it is not sufficient to create an adequate diverse student body. UT also considers her concern for the competition that would arise within minorities is mere speculation.

Overall there are a few ways this case could turn out. While, normally, there would be a 9 justice panel, Justice Elena Kagen recused herself, or stepped down, from this case and will not be casting her vote. Although she isn't required to say why she recused herself, there has been speculation that it is because she held a role in the case earlier as Solicitor General, and she feels that she would be biased. So, in this case, only 8 justices will make the decision. Because of this even number, it could happen that there would be a 4 to 4 split, wherein the decision would be the last courts decision, which sided with University of Texas.

While there is little chance that, if there was a 5 to 3 decision, the decisions made in Grutter would be overturned completely, there is a chance that the Court could clarify just how far institutions can go with their classification, such as they might choose to require that race be an even smaller factor in admissions. Another way this could go is that they simply decide to uphold Grutter without any revision and keep the system as it stands now.

Either way, the decision is predicted to be very close and, as it has its hands in state and in ever education institution in the country, there will be much excitement come June when they come out with their decision.

#fisher #in case you were wondering #glossophiliqueer #kupcakequeen23100 #kaihugstrees #odinsblog #text