Oct

16

Fisher v. Texas

Written by

Our very involved president.

Last week, the Supreme Court began hearing the Fisher vs. University of Texas case.  This case, concerning affirmative action at the University of Texas, threatens to overturn the 2003 Grutter vs. Bollinger, that upheld the use of affirmative action in admissions at the University of Michigan Law School.

Abigail Fisher, a white woman, brought her arguments to the court after being denied admission to the University of Texas in 2008.  She believes she was rejected because of her race; she thinks her place in the student body was taken to create more diversity in the school.

The University of Texas has a unique admissions process.  In 1997 they passed Texas House Bill 588.  This bill instituted the “Top 10% Rule,” wherein the top 10% of every public school in Texas is granted admission to University of Texas.  It came to being following Hopwood v. Texas, which showed that the university was not using affirmative action properly and could not use race in admissions.

However, a change came with Grutter vs. Bollinger.  In PrezBo’s Freedom of Speech and Press class, he has been candidly discussing the history of affirmative action cases.  “I’m an advocate,” PrezBo said last Wednesday.  He believes that it supports diversity, which allows students to learn more from each other with differing perspectives.  Just as a school wants students from every state and other countries, it wants people with different backgrounds.  As he wrote in an article last week in the LA Times, “abandonment of the Grutter precedent would undermine the quality of education we can offer to all our students.”  In class, Bollinger cited California Prop 209, which banned the use of race in the admissions process.  After it was instituted, he explained, diversity at California schools crashed.  He goes into details about this in the LA Times article.

He did not want this happening in Michigan.  In fact, he did not want it happening across the nation; Bollinger understood that the ruling in Grutter vs. Bollinger would affect institutions everywhere.  He ensured that, bringing together other schools.  He then pulled corporations to defend the use of race in hiring.  Gerald Ford wrote an op-ed in the New York Times about his college experience with diversity.  Bollinger also turned to military academies for their support.

Bollinger had two cases to fight: Grutter and Gratz vs. BollingerGratz was against the undergraduate school at Michigan.  In class, PrezBo explained that he was not aiming to win Gratz.  At the undergrad school, the admission process gave a certain amount of points to students of underrepresented minorities.  He knew that this would be deemed unconstitutional, and it was.

The Supreme Court has posited that Brown vs. Board of Education was about stopping segregation, not creating integration, and schools should follow that.  PrezBo went further to explain that affirmative action cannot be used to make up for centuries of mistreatment of minorities in America.  It is constitutional if used for educational purposes, to combine races and thus ideas.  But it is not constitutional if used to correct for injustice.  The Grutter case went how Bollinger wanted it to, and schools are allowed to use race in admissions decisions to further this integration of intellectual backgrounds and learning.  It was an odd Supreme Court decision, though, as Justice O’Connor, who wrote the majority decision, said this would only last for twenty-five years.

Now the decision in Grutter is being brought into question.  Justice O’Connor has since retired and was seated front row in the court last week.  PrezBo explained the decision will not be made until June, when the Supreme Court term ends and most big decisions are announced.  However, he is feeling “fairly hopeful” that his version of affirmative action will stand.

In the arguments made last week, Fisher was asked directly what they were asking for.  Fisher’s team said they are not seeking to overturn Grutter, but to prove that the UTexas system is flawed; they are challenging the 10% Rule, not affirmative action itself.  But the justices are not bound by the petitioner’s decision; they can still change the ruling from Grutter.

The major issue that was addressed last week was the idea of a “critical mass.”  This came from Grutter: universities could use race in admissions to ensure they had a “critical mass” of underrepresented minorities.  The question was exactly how universities define a “critical mass.”  It can’t be a quota to reach and is highly subjective.  Justice Kennedy dissented in 2003, objecting that “critical mass” sounded too much like filling a quota of minority students.  In Grutter, the definition was left to individual universities to decide.  Now, though, the Supreme Court is asking for specifics.

“The more justices ask for evidence of critical mass—these things are hard to judge quantitatively—the more difficult it will be for universities,” Bollinger said.  But, it is “possible to work on ‘critical mass’ without universities suffering.”  It would appear as if Columbia is already preparing for a change in the system.  The language of the CAFA charter lends itself to this, ready to make up for a constriction on affirmative action as it “offers guidance on how diversity…should be considered in evaluation of applicants for their potential to contribute to and benefit from the undergraduate experience at Columbia.”

Justice Kagan recused herself from this case as she had previous work on this case and in UT.  If the Supreme Court decision is tied, the decision will go back to the lower courts, where they already ruled in favor of the University of Texas.  PrezBo is not too worried about his case being overturned as the Supreme Court has to follow precedence, and the 2003 decision is clearly applicable.  This should affect Justice Kennedy, who most believe will have the deciding vote.

“Given that they are not asking to overturn Grutter, I’m optimistic at this stage,” Bollinger smiled last Wednesday in class, and moved on to the reading.

The title character of Grutter v. Bollinger via Wikimedia Commons

Tags: , , ,

9 Comments

  1. Prezbo's wrong

    They are asking the Court to overturn Grutter -- if the Court finds that UT Austin meets the standards required by Grutter. He should be less optimistic, because the Court will almost certainly find that the UT Austin meets those standards, as the program was specifically designed to meet them. And the Justices who are currently serving are inclined to overturn, unless Kennedy has changed his mind since then. Spec had a piece on this a while back that offered a different but also interesting analysis. http://spectrum.columbiaspectator.com/spectrum/prezbos-biggest-legal-victory-reconsidered

  2. Usually trolling...but...  

    This was very well-done. Good job, Bwog!

  3. cc  

    so...this girl didn't make it into the top 10% of students and was not automatically admitted, and in competition with others her application was rejected. sounds like she just wasn't good enough.

  4. Anonymous  

    only 3 comments on an affirmative action issue? bwog you've grown up.

  5. Anonymous  

    "See, this is where the liberal argument goes off the rails. You get stuck in the past. Now, you want to come back at me with: Grading is based on past performance, but admission should be based on potential and how a candidate may thrive with this sort of opportunity. And studies show that affirmative action admits have a higher disposition to contribute to society."

    The West Wing has a quote for everything.

  6. CC Senior  

    "the Supreme Court has to follow precedence". No it doesn't. The Supreme Court has overturned itself enough times before. That sentence is just inaccurate.

  7. Inaccurate  

    Not the best job explaining. The petitioner isn't "Challenging the 10% rule," she's arguing that rule is sufficient for creating the diversity they seek, and arguing the additional consideration of race among those students admitted NOT through the 10% plan is discriminatory. As one commenter pointed out, the statement would be that the SC has to follow "precedent," and they don't.

    And PrezBo's California argument has been proven wrong, if what matters is GRADUATING college, not merely attending. Look up the Atlantic's article on mismatch: same number of black/hispanic graduates in the five years after aff action was banned as compared to the five years before the ban. Disingenuous for PrezBo to focus merely on the admissions statistics and not the graduation ones.

  8. Anonymous

    Blodryinger clerked for Warren Burger

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.