The case in question represents Abigail Fisher, a white female who was denied admission at the University of Texas since she failed to qualify for the Texas Top Ten Percent Plan. She argued that the university considered many factors to fill the remaining slots including race, which was against the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. The district court, court of appeals and Supreme Court held that the university's admissions process was constitutional (Liptak, 2016). Some judges including Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts voiced their dissent regarding the ruling.
The attorneys, in this case, argued their point well, even though Fishers lawyers were not able to convince the jury that the race case was discriminatory to students intending to join the University. The prosecution attorneys argued well on why the university could use the basis of race to deny some students admission into the university. For instance, Gregory Garre a University of Texas argued that
““If this Court rules that the University of Texas can’t consider race, or if it rules that universities that consider race have to die a death of a thousand cuts for doing so, we know exactly what’s going to happen,”
Further, he expanded arguing that;
““Experience tells us that.” When the use of race has been dropped elsewhere, “diversity plummeted.” (Epps, 2015)
However, the dissenting judges voiced their concern since the incident was a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment which required equality even in higher education. In the Supreme Court interruptions is a common occurrence hence it was evident that this case was no different as the attorneys interrupted each other. Conservative justice was dominant as the ruling affirmed the court of appeals ruling that the university gave enough explanation concerning why it had to use the race factor to admit some students while denying others admission.
The dissenting judges were liberals as they pointed out that since the Supreme Court had affirmed the ruling, minority communities such as African Americans and Latinos would be affected by the university's selection process. The attorneys also seemed to take side depending on their political leanings while they argued the beliefs and principles of such political leanings (Epps, 2015). For instance, during the arguments, the liberals felt that the university was discriminating students on the basis of race while conservatives were satisfied with the explanations given by the school management.
After reading the short brief, I was surprised to the see that the holding was a 4-3 on the affirmative while I expected most judges to object. At the end of the ruling, it seemed that the judges had voted by political lines and that is the main reason why some of them went ahead to write dissenting opinions regarding the ruling. Watching the proceeding of the Supreme Court made me realize that some of the rulings are not fair since the judge's vote by their political affiliations (Nuez, Hoover, Pickett, Stuart-Carruthers, & Vazquez, 2013). For instance, in the United States, most people identify themselves as either conservatives or liberals and the passage of a ruling depends on how the judges view the case.
Further, I was surprised to see that even though Fishers attorneys tried to explain their race discrimination theory, the judges were not convinced and thus did not see anything wrong with the university discriminating students by their race. According to the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, race should not be used as a selection factor in higher education, and thus the university violated the fourth amendment. The Supreme Court should have realized that the ruling could have a significant impact even in other universities which may start using race as a factor of admitting students.
References
EPPS , G. (2015, December 10). Is Affirmative Action Finished? Retrieved from The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/when-can-race-be-a-college-admissions-factor/419808/
LIPTAK, A. (2016, JUNE 23). Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action Program at University of Texas. Retrieved from The New York Times : https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/politics/supreme-court-affirmative-action-university-of-texas.html?_r=0
Nuez, A.-M., Hoover, R., Pickett, K., Stuart-Carruthers, A., & Vazquez, M. (2013). Latinos in Higher Education: Creating Conditions for Student Success: ASHE Higher Education Report, 39:1. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
