Fisher vs UT Ruling

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
YHplease
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:38 am

Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby YHplease » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:43 am

Anybody else interested to see what SCOTUS ends up ruling in the Fisher v UT case in the next month or so?

User avatar
Dr. Nefario
Posts: 2079
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:07 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby Dr. Nefario » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:52 am

This was interesting before Scalia passed. Now its even more interesting. Before his passing it could've potentially been 5-3 or 4-3 to end AA. Now it could be 4-3 either way. With Kagan's recusal, this could be the only major case that actually has a majority decision. Though this is all speculative.

User avatar
DCfilterDC
Posts: 2285
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby DCfilterDC » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:58 am

Totally forgot about Kagan's recusal. Damn, not looking good for affirmative action

BobLobLaw11
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:46 am

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby BobLobLaw11 » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:18 pm

I've been reading that it will most likely be a 4-3 against UT with Kennedy being the swing vote, but it will be interesting to see whether the ruling will have narrow (against the ttp admission policy) or broad implications (against AA entirely with the possibility of repealing the Grutter ruling)

YHplease
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:38 am

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby YHplease » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:50 pm

Well for my sake I'm hoping that Grutter isn't going to be repealed at the end of all of this. The urm boost is sorely needed in my case :( :( :(

AlexanderJordan
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 3:37 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby AlexanderJordan » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:11 pm

YHplease wrote:Well for my sake I'm hoping that Grutter isn't going to be repealed at the end of all of this. The urm boost is sorely needed in my case :( :( :(


I doubt they would do such a landmark ruling without a complete court. I think they will just shoot down the UT admission plan. Besides, states that have already ruled out affirmative action still seem to give minorities a boost i.e. Berkley, USC, UCLA, Michigan, etc. I am in the same boat as you my friend so just stay positive haha

User avatar
Dr. Nefario
Posts: 2079
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:07 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby Dr. Nefario » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:54 pm

AlexanderJordan wrote:
YHplease wrote:Well for my sake I'm hoping that Grutter isn't going to be repealed at the end of all of this. The urm boost is sorely needed in my case :( :( :(


I doubt they would do such a landmark ruling without a complete court. I think they will just shoot down the UT admission plan. Besides, states that have already ruled out affirmative action still seem to give minorities a boost i.e. Berkley, USC, UCLA, Michigan, etc. I am in the same boat as you my friend so just stay positive haha


I definitely think they would do it without a full court. From the conservative side, you're probably not going to have another chance to overrule it for several years. Scalia will be replaced by a justice of the opposite view and there won't be a second chance. I don't think the size of the court really has much to do with it right now. Just gonna come down to what Kennedy decides is right.

User avatar
proteinshake
Posts: 861
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:20 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby proteinshake » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:56 pm

AlexanderJordan wrote:
YHplease wrote:Well for my sake I'm hoping that Grutter isn't going to be repealed at the end of all of this. The urm boost is sorely needed in my case :( :( :(


I doubt they would do such a landmark ruling without a complete court. I think they will just shoot down the UT admission plan. Besides, states that have already ruled out affirmative action still seem to give minorities a boost i.e. Berkley, USC, UCLA, Michigan, etc. I am in the same boat as you my friend so just stay positive haha

yeah there was a Berkeley Rep at my school and she was questioned on how the AA ban affects admissions. I don't remember exactly what she said but I remember it being that it didn't have any substantial effects - so I believe URM boosts aren't affected. not 100% sure on this.

Another1
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:58 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby Another1 » Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:10 pm

proteinshake wrote:
AlexanderJordan wrote:
YHplease wrote:Well for my sake I'm hoping that Grutter isn't going to be repealed at the end of all of this. The urm boost is sorely needed in my case :( :( :(


I doubt they would do such a landmark ruling without a complete court. I think they will just shoot down the UT admission plan. Besides, states that have already ruled out affirmative action still seem to give minorities a boost i.e. Berkley, USC, UCLA, Michigan, etc. I am in the same boat as you my friend so just stay positive haha

yeah there was a Berkeley Rep at my school and she was questioned on how the AA ban affects admissions. I don't remember exactly what she said but I remember it being that it didn't have any substantial effects - so I believe URM boosts aren't affected. not 100% sure on this.

admissions officers say a lot of things...

User avatar
proteinshake
Posts: 861
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:20 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby proteinshake » Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:20 pm

Another1 wrote:
proteinshake wrote:
AlexanderJordan wrote:
YHplease wrote:Well for my sake I'm hoping that Grutter isn't going to be repealed at the end of all of this. The urm boost is sorely needed in my case :( :( :(


I doubt they would do such a landmark ruling without a complete court. I think they will just shoot down the UT admission plan. Besides, states that have already ruled out affirmative action still seem to give minorities a boost i.e. Berkley, USC, UCLA, Michigan, etc. I am in the same boat as you my friend so just stay positive haha

yeah there was a Berkeley Rep at my school and she was questioned on how the AA ban affects admissions. I don't remember exactly what she said but I remember it being that it didn't have any substantial effects - so I believe URM boosts aren't affected. not 100% sure on this.

admissions officers say a lot of things...

yeah well the evidence + her words seem to show it won't have a huge effect.

Another1
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:58 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby Another1 » Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:28 pm

proteinshake wrote:
Another1 wrote:
proteinshake wrote:
AlexanderJordan wrote:
YHplease wrote:Well for my sake I'm hoping that Grutter isn't going to be repealed at the end of all of this. The urm boost is sorely needed in my case :( :( :(


I doubt they would do such a landmark ruling without a complete court. I think they will just shoot down the UT admission plan. Besides, states that have already ruled out affirmative action still seem to give minorities a boost i.e. Berkley, USC, UCLA, Michigan, etc. I am in the same boat as you my friend so just stay positive haha

yeah there was a Berkeley Rep at my school and she was questioned on how the AA ban affects admissions. I don't remember exactly what she said but I remember it being that it didn't have any substantial effects - so I believe URM boosts aren't affected. not 100% sure on this.

admissions officers say a lot of things...

yeah well the evidence + her words seem to show it won't have a huge effect.

i think you missed the minority representation in the t-14 thread. Berk doesn't have a plethora of minorities (especially blacks)

User avatar
proteinshake
Posts: 861
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:20 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby proteinshake » Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:38 pm

Another1 wrote:
proteinshake wrote:
Another1 wrote:
proteinshake wrote:
AlexanderJordan wrote:
YHplease wrote:Well for my sake I'm hoping that Grutter isn't going to be repealed at the end of all of this. The urm boost is sorely needed in my case :( :( :(


I doubt they would do such a landmark ruling without a complete court. I think they will just shoot down the UT admission plan. Besides, states that have already ruled out affirmative action still seem to give minorities a boost i.e. Berkley, USC, UCLA, Michigan, etc. I am in the same boat as you my friend so just stay positive haha

yeah there was a Berkeley Rep at my school and she was questioned on how the AA ban affects admissions. I don't remember exactly what she said but I remember it being that it didn't have any substantial effects - so I believe URM boosts aren't affected. not 100% sure on this.

admissions officers say a lot of things...

yeah well the evidence + her words seem to show it won't have a huge effect.

i think you missed the minority representation in the t-14 thread. Berk doesn't have a plethora of minorities (especially blacks)

true.

mke88
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:03 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby mke88 » Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:12 am

AlexanderJordan wrote:
YHplease wrote:Well for my sake I'm hoping that Grutter isn't going to be repealed at the end of all of this. The urm boost is sorely needed in my case :( :( :(


I doubt they would do such a landmark ruling without a complete court. I think they will just shoot down the UT admission plan. Besides, states that have already ruled out affirmative action still seem to give minorities a boost i.e. Berkley, USC, UCLA, Michigan, etc. I am in the same boat as you my friend so just stay positive haha


Former admission rep (on the undergrad side) here. The private vs. public debate is key here with California Prop 209. Private schools like USC and Stanford can openly use race in admission per Grutter. Public schools like Berkeley or UCLA have to be more savvy about how they talk about diversity issues--but I can attest that URM status is still used in the process, whether it's made explicit or not.

But Fisher could completely derail that distinction depending on how wide the net is cast against AA.

Budfox55
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby Budfox55 » Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:38 am

it also seems to me, at least with the UCs, that they give a huge bump if you come from a low socioeconomic background. I think that this is one way how they get around affirmative action since people from a low socioeconomic background are disproportionately racial minorities.

mke88
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:03 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby mke88 » Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:03 pm

Budfox55 wrote:it also seems to me, at least with the UCs, that they give a huge bump if you come from a low socioeconomic background. I think that this is one way how they get around affirmative action since people from a low socioeconomic background are disproportionately racial minorities.


It is one way to do it, but the UCs purport to be need-blind, so they would have to go primarily by school/area or personal statements to make that distinction. At my institution, we didn't have access to a student's financial aid information even if we wanted it.

It's a hard game to play. What I'm basically saying is that it is impossible to separate these factors when reading an application. Whether you say you are using URM status or not, you are still going to have that information in front of you and it is up to the individual (and the overall process, really) to decide how they want to take it into account. And given the profession (and education in general), many people feel pretty strongly about educational access and curating a diverse student body.

BobLobLaw11
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:46 am

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby BobLobLaw11 » Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:14 pm

Diversity is definitely a focus in the law profession. The amicus briefs filed by the ABA and LSAC in support of the University of Texas are pretty good reads as well:

http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/fisher-vs-ut-austin.pdf

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ABA-FISHERvUTAustin_amicus.pdf

Phil Brooks
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby Phil Brooks » Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:28 pm

The public/private distinction didn't come from Grutter, but from the Civil Rights Cases and the State Action doctrine. Those cases pointed out that the plain text of the 14th amendment suggests that it applies only to states, not to private actors.

Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act regulates private actors. I'm not sure if anyone has ever challenged university affirmative action plans based on that.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong--I got a B in Con Law lol.

Blackguy123
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby Blackguy123 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:27 am

AA upheld

Barack Obama 2.0
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 8:00 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby Barack Obama 2.0 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:33 am

Blackguy123 wrote:AA upheld


Scalia must be rolling in his grave. #staymadabby

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2389
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby Emma. » Thu Jun 23, 2016 3:39 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:The public/private distinction didn't come from Grutter, but from the Civil Rights Cases and the State Action doctrine. Those cases pointed out that the plain text of the 14th amendment suggests that it applies only to states, not to private actors.

Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act regulates private actors. I'm not sure if anyone has ever challenged university affirmative action plans based on that.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong--I got a B in Con Law lol.


This is wrong. All universities accept federal funding so they are all in the same boat. The public-private distinction is California specific. California banned race-conscious admissions for its state schools back in 1996.




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest