المؤلفون: Pleasant, Shakira D.

المصدر: SMU Law Review; Winter2024, Vol. 77 Issue 1, p161-186, 26p

مصطلحات موضوعية: UNIVERSITY & college admission

الشركة/الكيان: UNIVERSITY of North Carolina (System), HARVARD College (1780- )

مستخلص: The Supreme Court's holding that Harvard College's and the University of North Carolina's (UNC) "admissions systems" are invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an anticipated result. The Court's 2016 decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher II), left some speculation that race-conscious admissions could eventually be struck down by the Court; however, Fisher II also offered some guidance for future litigants to address challenges. Colleges and universities needed to use data to "scrutinize the fairness of their admissions programs" to satisfy the burden strict scrutiny and narrow tailoring impose. Despite previously touting the importance of data, the current Justices of the Supreme Court disregarded the data presented by both Harvard and UNC. Furthermore, the Court ignored stare decisis by discounting the diversity rationale enshrined by Justice Powell in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Since the Supreme Court's decision on June 29, 2023, scholars and parties to the case have opined about the decision's impact. Several writings focus on the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts. Others highlight the dissents written by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown-Jackson, but few focus on the concurring opinions. This Article focuses on stare decisis and the data presented by Harvard and UNC in the case. It also posits that rhetoric has been used to falsely frame inclusion practices as racial preferences. As such, this Article explores the origins of rhetoric to evaluate Justice Thomas's colorblind perspective of the United States Constitution, and more specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, this Article conducts a deeper examination of the approach highlighted by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: Copyright of SMU Law Review is the property of SMU Law Review Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

المؤلفون: Pleasant, Shakira D.

المصدر: University of Miami Business Law Review

مصطلحات موضوعية: Universities, Civil Rights and Discrimination, Law and Race, Fisher v. University of Texas, race, Education Law, affirmative action, discrimination, admission policies

وصف الملف: application/pdf

URL الوصول: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=issn23813652::684310986084c6c6d44d8d7f3dfde348
https://repository.law.miami.edu/umblr/vol24/iss2/8

المؤلفون: Pleasant, Shakira D.

المصدر: University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law; Feb2019, Vol. 21 Issue 3, p813-880, 68p

مصطلحات موضوعية: ADMISSIONS (Law), RACIAL differences, MINORITY students

People: KENNEDY, Anthony M., 1936-, FISHER, Abigail

مستخلص: This Article presents a nuanced view of Fisher v. University of Texas that has largely been ignored in mainstream discourse in the case. In Fisher, Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the deciding vote to uphold the University of Texas ("UT") race-conscious admissions policy. This was the first time that Justice Kennedy voted to uphold a race-conscious policy, and many commentators have focused on this aspect of his Fisher majority opinion. However, Justice Kennedy also gave a stern forewarning to UT and other universities: in the future, they better have strong data to show that they need to use race-conscious admissions. Kennedy did not hold UT to a strenuous evidentiary burden because the University did not have incentive to collect certain data up to 2008--the year that Plaintiff Abigail Fisher was denied admission. However, he also made it clear that UT and other universities are now on notice and will need meticulous data for future defense of their policies. Using UT as a model, this Article shows how universities can use data to defend their race-conscious policies and to ensure that they are attaining student body diversity along racial, socioeconomics, and other lines. First, this Article reviews jurisprudence on race-conscious university admissions, all the way up to Justice Kennedy's forewarning. Second, it evaluates data that UT has gathered since 2008. It considers admission and enrollment rates for UT's race-neutral Top Ten Percent Law ("TTPL") and for its race-conscious holistic admissions policy, and it also examines which secondary schools are the top feeders for minority students at UT. This Article argues that UT needs its race-conscious holistic policy because (1) White American students admitted under TTPL enroll at greater rates than Black and Latina/o TTPL admittees; and (2) Those minority students who are admitted via TTPL come from racially homogeneous schools. Part III of the Article then concludes with proposals for UT to defend its race-conscious policies and to improve enrollment and retention rates for minority students. These proposals also provide models for other universities who may face lawsuits against their affirmative action policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: Copyright of University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law is the property of Journal of Constitutional Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

المؤلفون: Pleasant, Shakira D.

المصدر: University of Miami Business Law Review; 2015/2016, Vol. 24 Issue 2, p111-130, 20p, 6 Graphs

مصطلحات موضوعية: FISHER v. University of Texas at Austin, RACE discrimination in education

مستخلص: An essay is presented which focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Fisher v. Texas and the practical impact of Texas' Top Ten Percent Law and concludes that "racial isolation" in schools is a perverse and insufficient means to attain diversity in higher education."

المؤلفون: Pleasant, Shakira D.

المساهمون: Harpalani, Vinay (VerfasserIn)

المصدر: 2021

مستخلص: Legal Scholars Defending Diversity in Higher Education submit this brief to the U.S. Supreme Court as amici curiae in support of Respondents in Fisher v. University of Texas, et al. (14-981). Amici argue that: 1. Racial isolation in schools is a perverse and insufficient means to attain diversity in higher education, because the U.S. Supreme Court has noted that reducing racial isolation is a compelling interest, and Texas's Top Percent Law yields racial diversity only because of such racial isolation; 2. Universities need to use holistic, race-conscious admissions policies to pursue qualitative diversity (i.e., diversity within racial groups), because qualitative diversity has educational benefits and requires individualized assessment of applicants; 3. Elimination of racial disparities, not critical mass, provides a measurable end point for race-conscious admissions, because while the compelling interest that justifies race-conscious admissions is the educational benefits of student body diversity, the need to use race to achieve such diversity is predicated on racial disparities and inequality; and 4. Less reliance on race is a constitutional virtue, not a vice, contrary to Petitioner's assertion, because small increases in racial diversity have benefits and because less reliance on race indicates a university's serious intent to eventually transition to race-neutral admissions policies