How Will Fisher v. University of Texas Affect the URM Boost? Forum

[wbrother]

Hey all, didn't read through the whole thread, but I wanted to throw this out there.

I spent about a year doing research on how AA URM admissions were affected by the Grutter decision back in '03. The percentage of AA enrolling in law schools following Grutter was actually on a slight downward trend up until about 2011. It might still be, but I think it's more or less evened out. The point is that Grutter had almost no effect on things.

Law Schools seem to find a way to recruit their desired classes regardless of the laws at play. Prop 209 banned URM boosts in CA a long time ago, but every CA school (except Cal & UCLA) found a way to accept me with 3.2 164 AND a minor C&F issue. Schools will find a way around Fisher too.

[J-e-L-L-o]

Shouldn't this be a lounge topic?

Sorry to sound like a bad apple.

[bizzybone1313]

Hey all, didn't read through the whole thread, but I wanted to throw this out there.

I spent about a year doing research on how AA URM admissions were affected by the Grutter decision back in '03. The percentage of AA enrolling in law schools following Grutter was actually on a slight downward trend up until about 2011. It might still be, but I think it's more or less evened out. The point is that Grutter had almost no effect on things.

Law Schools seem to find a way to recruit their desired classes regardless of the laws at play. Prop 209 banned URM boosts in CA a long time ago, but every CA school (except Cal & UCLA) found a way to accept me with 3.2 164 AND a minor C&F issue. Schools will find a way around Fisher too.

Besides Stanford, Cal, USC and UCLA are the most important schools to look at in terms of admissions. To me, it seems like the private schools are going to have much more leeway than the public ones.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Shouldn't this be a lounge topic?

Sorry to sound like a bad apple.

No it's fine. The subject seemed so pertinent to URMs specifically, and it isn't about the merits of AA so much as the effects on AA of the case (on a functional level) that I figured it should be here.

But if the mods feel the need to move it to off-topic, that's obviously fine too.

[eav1277]

From what I gather, it appears that most think there will not be a substantial effect (if any) on law school admissions.
However, the possibility exists that AA could be heavily affected.

Would it be a large gamble for URM's who have applied this cycle to choose to reapply in future cycles (if they wanted to work/travel/LSAT retake, etc)?

[Lad]

I gotta be honest, after oral arguments for Fisher v UT II on Wednesday, it doesn't look good for URM's looking to apply next cycle. It seems as if Kennedy, the swing vote will side Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia on this one and vote to end affirmative action altogether. If this is the case there will almost certainly be a precipitous decline in URM representation in many of the T-14 schools, particularly at HYS.

[future!jd12]

I gotta be honest, after oral arguments for Fisher v UT II on Wednesday, it doesn't look good for URM's looking to apply next cycle. It seems as if Kennedy, the swing vote will side Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia on this one and vote to end affirmative action altogether. If this is the case there will almost certainly be a precipitous decline in URM representation in many of the T-14 schools, particularly at HYS.

HYS are private schools and can do whatever they want. It would only really impact UVA Michigan and Cal

[lacrossebrother]

how could that happen when the issue is just whether the top ten program is the least intrusive means

[deepseapartners]

I gotta be honest, after oral arguments for Fisher v UT II on Wednesday, it doesn't look good for URM's looking to apply next cycle. It seems as if Kennedy, the swing vote will side Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia on this one and vote to end affirmative action altogether. If this is the case there will almost certainly be a precipitous decline in URM representation in many of the T-14 schools, particularly at HYS.

What are you seeing in the oral arguments that leads you to believe that Kennedy's looking to join an opinion that ends AA altogether?

[lacrossebrother]

I gotta be honest, after oral arguments for Fisher v UT II on Wednesday, it doesn't look good for URM's looking to apply next cycle. It seems as if Kennedy, the swing vote will side Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia on this one and vote to end affirmative action altogether. If this is the case there will almost certainly be a precipitous decline in URM representation in many of the T-14 schools, particularly at HYS.

HYS are private schools and can do whatever they want. It would only really impact UVA Michigan and Cal

did the civil rights act get repealed?

[Lad]

I gotta be honest, after oral arguments for Fisher v UT II on Wednesday, it doesn't look good for URM's looking to apply next cycle. It seems as if Kennedy, the swing vote will side Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia on this one and vote to end affirmative action altogether. If this is the case there will almost certainly be a precipitous decline in URM representation in many of the T-14 schools, particularly at HYS.

HYS are private schools and can do whatever they want. It would only really impact UVA Michigan and Cal

Nope, it would apply to private universities as well, because of Title VII of the civil rights act . Furthermore, HYS receive get some money from the feds.

[lacrossebrother]

I gotta be honest, after oral arguments for Fisher v UT II on Wednesday, it doesn't look good for URM's looking to apply next cycle. It seems as if Kennedy, the swing vote will side Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia on this one and vote to end affirmative action altogether. If this is the case there will almost certainly be a precipitous decline in URM representation in many of the T-14 schools, particularly at HYS.

HYS are private schools and can do whatever they want. It would only really impact UVA Michigan and Cal

Nope, it would apply to private universities as well, because of Title VII of the civil rights act . Furthermore, HYS receive get some money from the feds.

how the hell does title vii apply?

[Lad]

I gotta be honest, after oral arguments for Fisher v UT II on Wednesday, it doesn't look good for URM's looking to apply next cycle. It seems as if Kennedy, the swing vote will side Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia on this one and vote to end affirmative action altogether. If this is the case there will almost certainly be a precipitous decline in URM representation in many of the T-14 schools, particularly at HYS.

HYS are private schools and can do whatever they want. It would only really impact UVA Michigan and Cal

Nope, it would apply to private universities as well, because of Title VII of the civil rights act . Furthermore, HYS receive get some money from the feds.

how the hell does title vii apply?

Dude, do you even know what Title VI is? Jeez. It prohibits among other things discrimination based on : race,gender, religion and national origin.

[lacrossebrother]

in employment, bud.
don't be wrong when you correct people.
it's vi and title ix of the education amendments you're looking for.

[lacrossebrother]

I gotta be honest, after oral arguments for Fisher v UT II on Wednesday, it doesn't look good for URM's looking to apply next cycle. It seems as if Kennedy, the swing vote will side Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia on this one and vote to end affirmative action altogether. If this is the case there will almost certainly be a precipitous decline in URM representation in many of the T-14 schools, particularly at HYS.

HYS are private schools and can do whatever they want. It would only really impact UVA Michigan and Cal

Nope, it would apply to private universities as well, because of Title VII of the civil rights act . Furthermore, HYS receive get some money from the feds.

how the hell does title vii apply?

Dude, do you even know what Title VII is? Jeez. It prohibits among other things discrimination based on : race,gender, religion and national origin.

just quoting for some posterity

[Lad]

in employment, bud.
don't be wrong when you correct people.
it's vi and title ix of the education amendments you're looking for.

My fault, I meant title VI. Don't patronize, i'll concede that I was wrong about the name of the specific clause (sue me), but that's not the point, you knew what I was getting at, you were completely wrong about the fact that a 5-3 vote on the SCOTUS (the likely outcome) would apply to all universities, know your place and own up to the fact that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, instead of engaging in ad hominems.

[lacrossebrother]

in employment, bud.
don't be wrong when you correct people.
it's vi and title ix of the education amendments you're looking for.

My fault, I meant title VI. Don't patronize, i'll concede that I was wrong about the name of the specific clause (sue me), but that's not the point, you knew what I was getting at, you were completely wrong about the fact that a 5-3 vote on the SCOTUS (the likely outcome) would apply to all universities, know your place and own up to the fact that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, instead of engaging in ad homonyms.

[Traynor Brah]

in employment, bud.
don't be wrong when you correct people.
it's vi and title ix of the education amendments you're looking for.

My fault, I meant title VI. Don't patronize, i'll concede that I was wrong about the name of the specific clause (sue me), but that's not the point, you knew what I was getting at, you were completely wrong about the fact that a 5-3 vote on the SCOTUS (the likely outcome) would apply to all universities, know your place and own up to the fact that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, instead of engaging in ad homonyms.

[lacrossebrother]

just in case you're being serious (albeit using the term ad homonym), Im the one who corrected the original poster who said "universities can do whatever they want." With that said, I'm actually not aware of any case saying that AA programs as authorized by the civil rights act are subject to strict scrutiny

[Lad]

just in case you're being serious (albeit using the term ad homonym), Im the one who corrected the original poster who said "universities can do whatever they want." With that said, I'm actually not aware of any case saying that AA programs as authorized by the civil rights act are subject to strict scrutiny

So what's your point?

albeit using the term ad homonym

Spell check corrected my original spelling of it, didn't bother correcting it until afterwards, although I find it highly amusing that someone with egregious punctation and spelling would throw stones whilst living in a glass house.

[jbagelboy]

just in case you're being serious (albeit using the term ad homonym), Im the one who corrected the original poster who said "universities can do whatever they want." With that said, I'm actually not aware of any case saying that AA programs as authorized by the civil rights act are subject to strict scrutiny

So what's your point?

albeit using the term ad homonym

Spell check corrected my original spelling of it, didn't bother correcting it until afterwards, although I find it highly amusing that someone with egregious punctation and spelling would throw stones whilst living in a glass house.

Lol. Lacrossebro agreed with you and you're trying (unsuccessfully) to throw him under the bus. Some people are new to the internet

[Br3v]

Going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there will be no change over URM acceptances for a few years. No school is going to be the one that makes headlines because the student body protests an instant lack in racial diversity in an incoming class. Over 5 to 10 years though, that is a much different story.

[Emma.]

Didn't seem from oral argument that there would be 5 votes for a broad ruling overruling Grutter. I don't even know that the Chief would be up for that, let alone Kennedy.

UT apparently didn't provide much data on the diversity they get through the top 10% plan, so I could see the Court saying they haven't met their burden under strict scrutiny. But that ruling wouldn't have much if any effect on the vast majority of schools that do a full holistic review.

[Lad]

Didn't seem from oral argument that there would be 5 votes for a broad ruling overruling Grutter. I don't even know that the Chief would be up for that, let alone Kennedy.

UT apparently didn't provide much data on the diversity they get through the top 10% plan, so I could see the Court saying they haven't met their burden under strict scrutiny. But that ruling wouldn't have much if any effect on the vast majority of schools that do a full holistic review.

Scalia, Roberts and Alito, grilled UT's lawyer and made it explicitly clear that they hate affirmative action, not surprising. Thomas as usual didn't say anything, but everybody knows he's against affirmative action and that he's the most conservative justice on the court. The liberal judges: Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor defended AA, and Kennedy (the swing vote) was more so irritated at the fact that they were arguing the same case after it was sent back to the appeals court a couple years back. Furthermore, Kennedy has never ever voted to uphold affirmative action, so if precedent is at all indicative of how he'll vote this time around, it doesn't bode well for affirmative action. Moreover, i'm pretty sure this would overturn Grutter and make using race as a factor in admissions illegal, would it not?

[WorthlessDegree]

It's important to remember that the current SCOTUS justices have a tendency to overreach. For instance, Citizens United was originally only applying to one small provision of the McCain-Feingold Act, and the justices seized it as an opportunity to overturn over a hundred years of judicial precedent.