Browsing by Subject "Affirmative action"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Fisher v. University of Texas: The Potential for Social Science Research in Race-Conscious Admissions
    (Thomson Reuters, 2013-02-28) Eckes, Suzanne; Nguyễn, David Hòa Khoa; School of Education
    Less than ten years after Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear Fisher v. University of Texas, another race conscious admissions case in higher education. In Fisher v. University of Texas, Abigail Fisher, a white Texas resident, claimed that she was denied admission to the University of Texas in Austin because of her race. Specifically, she alleges that minority students with less stellar qualifications were admitted instead of her. Affirming the district court’s opinion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of the University. The Fifth Circuit did not find the university’s plan to be an illegal quota or akin to racial balancing. Instead, the court determined that the university followed the Grutter decision and carefully considered race as one of many factors in admitting students. The Fifth Circuit declined to hear the case en banc. After briefly highlighting the equal protection analysis, the outcomes in earlier Supreme Court decisions involving race-conscious admissions, and the 2011 Guidance from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice on implementing race-conscious policies in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education, we examine the amicus briefs filed on behalf of Abigail Fisher and the University of Texas. In analyzing the amicus briefs, particular attention is focused on whether social science research was relied upon. Specifically, the social science research was rated and then discussed in order to highlight the range of research relied upon by both amici.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Mutiny Over Strict Scrutiny? Interpreting the Judicial Approach to Race-Conscious Higher Education Admission Policies
    (Thomson Reuters, 2016) Nguyễn, David Hòa Khoa; Ward, LaWanda; School of Education
    During the United States Supreme Court’s 2015-16 term, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (hereinafter referred to as Fisher I and Fisher II) was heard for a second time. The main issue in this case centered on the question of whether the University’s implementation of its admissions plan, in conjunction with the state’s Top Ten Percent Law, meets the two-prong strict scrutiny standard of first, being a compelling state interest and second, a narrowly tailored means to meet the stated objective. Under the Top Ten Percent Law high school students who graduate in the top ten percent of their class are eligible for automatic admission to any public college or university in Texas. In its 2013 ruling in Fisher I, the Supreme Court surmised that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to properly apply the strict scrutiny analysis to the contested plan. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the first appearance of Fisher I in 2011 and the second in 2014 that the University’s admissions format is constitutionally sound based on a strict scrutiny analysis. Since the application of the doctrinal framework for strict scrutiny is at odds between the high court and the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court’s analysis in Fisher II is of great interest. In this article using colorblind discourse as a theoretical framework, we posit why the Supreme Court accepted Fisher I for a second time especially in light of justiciability questions regarding the “troublesome threshold issues relating to standing and mootness,” analyze the Court’s Fisher II oral arguments, and share best practices on what higher education institutions can legally do to continue admitting and retaining people of color.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Strict Scrutiny & Fisher: The Court's Decision and its Implications
    (Thomson Reuters, 2014) Nguyễn, David Hòa Khoa; Ulm, Jessica; Chesnut, Colleen; Eckes, Suzanne; School of Education
    During the 2012-2013 term of the U.S. Supreme Court, many were in suspense over how the Court would rule on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the latest higher education case involving race-conscious admissions. Because it has been less than ten years since the Supreme Court ruled on Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, some expected the Court to overrule the use of race in deciding admissions into colleges and universities. Instead, the Supreme Court affirmed that diversity is a compelling state interest and race-conscious admissions are permissible under a strict scrutiny review. However, the Court remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit because it did not properly review the University’s admissions plan to determine whether it was narrowly tailored. In Fisher, Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian Texas resident, claimed that the University of Texas at Austin denied her admission because of her race and that other minority students with fewer qualifications were admitted instead of her. Affirming the district court’s opinion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of the University presuming that the University’s decision to use race was made in good faith. The Supreme Court ruled that deference to the University under the narrow tailoring prong does not follow the standard of strict scrutiny. After briefly explaining the equal protection analysis and earlier Supreme Court decisions involving race-conscious admissions, we provide a background on the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin case and ruling. We further analyze the case under the strict scrutiny judicial review standard and explore how social science could play a role in determining the outcome. The article then expands on the ruling’s implications in higher education, K-12 education, private colleges and universities, and the hiring of faculty and teachers.