Home Civil Fisher Case Puts Affirmative Action in the Spotlight

Fisher Case Puts Affirmative Action in the Spotlight

Fisher Case Puts Affirmative Action in the Spotlight

Introduction

Affirmative action has been a contentious issue in the United States for decades, but it is now in the spotlight once again due to Abigail Fisher’s case against the University of Texas Austin. The case has significant implications for not just racial affirmative action, but also for policies that aim to increase diversity in traditionally male-dominated fields.

The Background

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement in 2005 left a vacancy on the Supreme Court that was eventually filled by conservative Justice Samuel Alito. This change opened the door for Fisher’s case to potentially reshape affirmative action policies across the country.

Abigail Fisher claimed that she was denied admission to the University of Texas Austin based on her race, and she argued that the school’s use of affirmative action was unconstitutional. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the University of Texas in a 4-3 decision.

The Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher’s case has significant implications for affirmative action policies. While the ruling affirmed that affirmative action is constitutional, it also placed limitations on how universities can use race as a factor in admissions decisions.

The decision allows universities to consider race in admissions, but only as a means of promoting diversity and only if race-neutral methods of achieving diversity are insufficient. This means that schools must prove that their affirmative action policies are necessary to achieve a diverse student body.

The case has broader implications for other forms of affirmative action as well. Policies that aim to increase diversity in traditionally male-dominated fields, for example, could be affected if universities are limited in their use of affirmative action.

The Future of Affirmative Action

The Fisher case and the Supreme Court’s decision highlight the ongoing debate surrounding affirmative action and its place in American society. Supporters of affirmative action argue that it is necessary to promote diversity and correct for past injustices, while opponents claim that it is unconstitutional and perpetuates discrimination.

As future cases make their way through the courts, it is likely that affirmative action will continue to be a contentious issue. The Fisher case, however, provides a framework for universities to use race-conscious admissions policies in a way that is constitutional and promotes diversity.

Conclusion

The Fisher case has put affirmative action in the spotlight, and its implications will be felt for years to come. While the Supreme Court’s decision affirmed the constitutionality of affirmative action, it also placed limitations on how universities can use race in admissions decisions.

As the debate over affirmative action continues, it is important to remember the importance of diversity in American society and the need to promote equal opportunities for all.


When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired in 2005, she left room for a new swing vote to be nominated who could change affirmative action policy in the United States.  Since O’Connor was replaced with the conservative Samuel Alito, Abigail Fisher’s case against the University of Texas Austin may change how affirmative action looks in the United States.  The case has implications not only for racial affirmative action, but also for policies like affirmative action for women applying to schools of engineering or other traditionally male fields.

Fisher’s case was argued in front of the Supreme Court in October, and the justices are expected to issue a ruling in the spring.

According to Abigail Fisher, a recent graduate of Louisiana State University, her earning power would have been significantly higher if she had graduated from the University of Texas Austin.  What’s more, she claims that the reason she was not able to attend the University of Texas is that the university’s affirmative action policies discriminated against her for being white.

It is true that the University of Texas Austin uses race as a factor in its admissions policy.  However, in accordance with the 2003 Supreme Court opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, race is only used as one of many factors in a holistic rating of a candidate.  The ruling in Grutter allowed for this kind of holistic scoring system, while explicitly ruling that quota systems for racial or gender based affirmative action would not be considered constitutional.

However, Fisher’s case is an interesting one in several different ways.  For one thing, it’s not clear that Fisher would have actually been granted admission to the University of Texas regardless of whether her racial background was white, black, or any other.  According to the University’s metrics, Fisher’s lackluster standardized test scores and high school GPA would have been enough to bar her from admission even with additional points assigned for hardships or racial factors.

Additionally, it can be difficult for students to actually prove that they would have derived any benefit from having gone to a different school.

The case has been made even more interesting for court observers by Justice Elena Kagan, who recused herself from the case due to having worked on it in her capacity as the United States Solicitor General under Barack Obama.  This means that unlike in most Supreme Court cases, there is the possibility that the case would be tied, with the court’s four most conservative justices ruling against the Texas policy and the four liberal justices ruling in the university’s favor.

In the event of a tie, the lower court’s ruling is affirmed.  In this case, that would mean the University’s policy is allowed to stand, which the appeals court had previously ruled.  Questions during oral arguments from the conservative justices seemed to suggest that they, at least, would prefer to end the University’s affirmative action policies.

Sources: uscourts.gov, New York Times