Supporters of affirmative action fear that the Supreme Court could curtail or further restrict the use of race-conscious admissions policies at public universities.

On Wednesday, all eyes will be on Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote is considered pivotal in the case brought by a white Texan who has sued the University of Texas at Austin, claiming that she was denied admission to the school in 2008 because of her race. Abigail Fisher, who has since graduated from Louisiana State University, said she was subject to unequal treatment in violation of the 14th Amendment.

"I was taught from the time I was a little girl that any kind of discrimination was wrong, and for an institution of higher learning to act this way makes no sense to me," Fisher said in an interview clip posted on the website of the Project on Fair Representation, a legal defense foundation that's providing her with legal representation.

On the other side are lawyers for the University of Texas, who argue that, like many other universities, UT seeks to assemble a class that is diverse in innumerable ways -- including race -- and that "race is just one of many characteristics that form the mosaic presented by an applicant's file."

More than 90 friend of the court briefs have been filed in the case, with the Obama administration weighing in favor of the university. Others, who support Fisher, argue that diversity can be achieved through race-neutral programs, and that race-preferential admissions policies can do more harm than good.

"What's at issue is: (1) whether it will remain permissible to consider race in an attempt to ensure that higher level education remains integrated; and (2) whether universities or the court are going to be the ones to determine what academic diversity consists of," said David D. Cole, a professor at Georgetown Law, who believes UT's plan should be upheld.

It was only recently, in 2003, that the Supreme Court narrowly upheld the limited use of race in public university admissions policies in Grutter v. Bollinger. The five-four opinion was written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who said that diversity was a compelling government interest. But O'Connor has since retired from the high court, and has been replaced by Justice Samuel Alito, who is more skeptical of race-conscious admissions preferences.

In 1997, the Texas legislature passed the "Top 10 Percent Law," which mandates that Texas high school seniors in the top 10 percent of their class be automatically admitted to any Texas state university. But after the Grutter decision came down, another policy was added that allows the school to consider race among several other factors for admission. Fisher did not qualify for automatic admission, and was forced to compete with other non-top-10-percent state applicants. She said she was denied admission, even though her academic credentials exceeded those of some of the admitted minority candidates. <<< Preferential treatment? Do I see quotas? Do I see minorities given a grade edge? Seems they don't really want equality.

The University of Texas, which was racially segregated during the first 70 years of its existence, argues that its current program exemplifies the type of plan the Supreme Court allowed in Grutter v. Bollinger: "Race is only one modest factor among many others weighed; it is considered only in an individualized and contextual way that examines the student in their totality."

But lawyers for Fisher said that the top 10 percent plan had made UT one of the most diverse public universities in the nation, and that the school did not need to overlay the successful race-neutral program with another one that considered race. Furthermore, they said that the school is working toward an impermissible goal of using race in admissions to mirror the demographics of Texas, which they said amounted to "racial balancing."

While Fisher's lawyers argue that Grutter should be clarified or even overturned, supporters of UT's program take solace in Kennedy's opinion in Grutter. He ruled against the University of Michigan Law School program named in that case but said, "There is no constitutional objection to the goal of considering race as one modest factor among many others to achieve diversity, but an educational institution must ensure, through sufficient procedures, that each applicant receives individual consideration and that race does not become a predominant factor in the admissions decision making."

Despite those words, Kennedy has never -- in his entire career on the bench -- voted in favor of racial preferences.

"That fact makes it hard to predict how Justice Kennedy will address this plan," said Cole. "If any plan would satisfy Justice Kennedy, it would seem that this one would because the university formulated its plan to meet the specific objections that Justice Kennedy had to the Michigan affirmative action plan."

Justice Elena Kagan will not participate in the case, because she dealt with it in her previous position as solicitor general.

Lawyers for Fortune 100 companies filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the UT, arguing that those who have been educated in a diverse setting are "better equipped to understand a wider variety of consumer needs" and are "likely to generate a more positive work environment by decreasing incidents of discrimination and stereotyping."

Even the National Association of Basketball coaches said in briefs, "Our student athletes, and all of the students who attend our institutions, receive the best education when they are able to interact with others within a university community that is broadly diverse across its entire scope."

Filing on behalf of Abigail Fisher, three members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights point to empirical evidence that they said shows that race-preferential admissions policies do more harm than good. "If this research is right," argued lawyers for commission members Gail Heriot, Peter Kirsanow and Todd Gaziano, "We now have fewer minority science and engineering graduates than we would have under race-neutral admissions policies."

There are six states that have laws banning the use of affirmative action in public universities (Arizona, Michigan, Nebraska, Washington, California and Florida, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures). The University of California has filed a brief arguing that its inability to consider race has hurt the school's diversity. The university said it has experimented with different strategies to address underreprestend minority student populations, but that these measures have enjoyed only "limited success," and that the school, particularly, in its most highly ranked campuses, has not been able to reverse a decline in minority admissions and enrollment.

A decision in the current case, likely to come down sometime in early 2012, could have implications for private institutions that receive federal funding, as well as hiring decisions in public institutions.

Wassa' matter?
No Liberals up in here want to say there's no such a thang as discrimination against this woman because of her color or higher GPA?

She was not admitted even though she had a higher grade to enter. Is that fair or equal?

Discrimination sanctioned by Law!

If she wins others will sue and hopefully, we can end the outdated quota and special treatment system.

Once again it boils down to liberal vs conservative which makes it political, which makes it BS....Racial discrimination is an antiquated concept or expression...It should be done away with in every arena...Race should not be a consideration in education, housing, the workplace, marriage, anywhere and is only made a consideration by racists belonging to any and every racial category....No one should be required to state their race on any form or application for any reason...

Abigail Fisher is right to challenge the law and the ONLY thing that makes her case special is the fact that she is caucasian...

Now that O'Connor is out we may see some justice done if Alito sides with Fisher...Texas does not need affirmative action to establish diversity in its educational "experience"...Nearly 23% of entering freshmen are black or Hispanic...They did not take advantage of affirmative action laws to gain admittance, they were admitted based on their high school GPA and other performance levels...

it should be interesting,, I dont know from a blurb the details

questions to consider

what 'credentials' is she referring to

what makes them 'higher'

how did she come by this information?

was it only minority students that were admitted in spite of this discrepancy or were there also other white students admitted who had lower credentials than her


seems the difficulty will be proving her admittance was specifically hanging only upon her RACE

,,,should be interesting

my question is,, how do people KNOW why students have been accepted to a college

they either ASSUME its affirmative action (when they are minority students) or they say (As in above) That it wasnt affirmative action,,,,

but how does someone outside the situation know WHY a student has been admitted, and does anyone realize admissions considers much more than grades and always has, REGARDLESS of race

like, military service, or schools attended previously, or relation to alumni,,,etc,,,,

The gal must have someting or an attorney would say she doesn't have a case.
This could help put an end to unequal rights.

Screw quotas and special treatment.

the potential pay off and historical implications would be enough for an attorney to take the case if they thought they were good enough to sell it,,,


I doubt 'unequal' rights will ever be ended in a country where a whole demographic has been given an 'unequal' foundation/start...

This information is a matter of public record Harmony....The University of Texas is not a private college, it is a public college....Do you really think the courts are going to hear a case that is based on assumption?...

And, as I said in my post "admitted based on high school GPA and OTHER performance levels"...

What century are we living in?

I'd like to see an equal, level playing field.

By allowing minorities the grade-point edge is saying they are stupid.

Them accepting the leverage is admitting it.

The playing field is now level, and people's successes and failures are due to their own character. However, the leveling of the playing field has not produced equal results.

the 21st century,, the nineteenth and twentieth were largely DISADVANTAGED for minorities

so, yeah,, even by the time we run the third lap,, if you have had a start of two laps,, the odds of those you finally allowed to join the race wont fare so 'equally'

what I accept and admit is that money talks

what I accept and admit is that the foundational history of the country up to and until just FIFTY odd years ago, did not allow for an equal access to the wealth

what I accept and admit is that as a long term effect of those centuries of inequality of wealth, have created an inequality of opportunity

what I accept and admit is that all schools are not equal and those in less 'wealthy' districts dont have the same level of education as those which arent

what I accept and admit is because of that INITIAL inequality that is no fault of the students in those schools, by the time those students reach college admission age they are at a disadvantage COMPETITIVELY with those who attended better quality schools even when they could potentially be just as successful as more if given an EQUAL access to material and quality education,,,


the playing field is still not LEVEL, by a long shot

Women still making a lot less than men...

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/women-managers-make-men-more-money-pay-gap-...


Also striking Walmart workers trying to unionize...

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/video/walmart-workers-fight-form-union-17443220

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/video/walmart-greeter-73-fired-touching-customer-pushed-avoid-16740722

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/walmart-cuts-health-care-employees-14790554

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/video/walmart-workers-protest-for-higher-pay-job-security-17451801

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/minority_rights.html
since we are at Minority-Rights!

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

“America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 61

¶

The defense of minority rights is acclaimed today, virtually by everyone, as a moral principle of a high order. But this principle, which forbids discrimination, is applied by most of the “liberal” intellectuals in a discriminatory manner: it is applied only to racial or religious minorities. It is not applied to that small, exploited, denounced, defenseless minority which consists of businessmen.

Yet every ugly, brutal aspect of injustice toward racial or religious minorities is being practiced toward businessmen.


http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html

Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge—for an automatic evaluation of men’s characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment—and, above all, a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).

Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if demonstrated by a majority—but retrogression to a Balkan village, to an Indian tepee or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority.



“The Age of Envy,”
Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 142

I would love to see, in my lifetime, affirmative action dismantled.

It's segregation honed to an art.

Ms Fisher, IMO, was discriminated against.

Hope she makes enough to pay her education and start her with a solid foundation in the real world.

That just might happen Will...

About the trial...

When asked by Justice Roberts to name the critical number required to achieve an acceptable level of diversity, lawyers for the university did not answer because doing so would contradict Texas University's stance on rejecting quotas...Roberts response..."You won’t tell me what the critical mass is, how am I supposed to do the job that our precedents say I should do?”....

Since Justice Kagan withdrew, there are eight Justices remaining...Five of them are conservative and four of these seem to be leaning toward a decision in favor of Fisher...With Kagan out, they need a vote of 5-3 to overturn Gutter vs. Bollinger...Conservative Justices include Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.....

lol


poor businessmen


I guess they want all the ENTITLEMENTS of having a business in America without any of the 'rules' for being able to do so,,,