This began with a lawsuit by Abigail Noel Fisher and Rachel Multer Michalewicz who applied to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 and were denied admission. The two women, both white, filed lawsuit, alleging that the University had discriminated against them on the basis of their race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gurumurthy Kalyanaram discusses the current state of this vital public policy question on consideration elements to admission to universities and colleges.\
Gurumurthy Kalyanaram discusses the current state of this vital public policy question on consideration elements to admission to universities and colleges.\
In answering this important question, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Fisher v. University of Texas, 133 S. Ct. 241, hasheld that due deference to the University’s experience and expertise regarding whether student body diversity is a compelling interest must be given, but the University also had to prove that the means it chose to attain that diversity were narrowly tailored to achieve its goal. Based on its decision, the lawsuit was remanded to the Fifth Circuit. (Read : Gurumurthy Kalyanaram on Interpretation of Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA))
The Supreme Court called for a strict scrutiny, without defining what that strict scrutiny meant. The Court forcefully explained that meaningful strict scrutiny must always be applied to a college’s use of race, and added that a reviewing “court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity” (without discussing whether the word “workable” takes account of the university’s other educational goals — such as assembling a student body with good academic credentials.) For now, the Court has not defined the thresholds and/or parameters of what might constitute strict scrutiny.
Overall, it appears that race-based affirmative action can continue. As a result of all this, educational institutions remain more or less free to continue to do what they have been doing, provided they are more careful in their justification.
The Supreme Court called for a strict scrutiny, without defining what that strict scrutiny meant. The Court forcefully explained that meaningful strict scrutiny must always be applied to a college’s use of race, and added that a reviewing “court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity” (without discussing whether the word “workable” takes account of the university’s other educational goals — such as assembling a student body with good academic credentials.) For now, the Court has not defined the thresholds and/or parameters of what might constitute strict scrutiny.
Overall, it appears that race-based affirmative action can continue. As a result of all this, educational institutions remain more or less free to continue to do what they have been doing, provided they are more careful in their justification.
RSS Feed