Top Law Schools

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

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.

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

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)

Well for my sake I'm hoping that Grutter isn't going to be repealed at the end of all of this.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

YHplease wrote:Well for my sake I'm hoping that Grutter isn't going to be repealed at the end of all of this.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

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YHplease wrote:Well for my sake I'm hoping that Grutter isn't going to be repealed at the end of all of this.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.

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YHplease wrote:Well for my sake I'm hoping that Grutter isn't going to be repealed at the end of all of this.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.

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...

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ... austin.pdf

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/up ... amicus.pdf

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.

AA upheld

Blackguy123 wrote:AA upheld

Scalia must be rolling in his grave. #staymadabby

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.

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

Possibility they rule for fisher but I'd be shocked if they went as far as nerfing AA altogether, especially given with the racial tensions in this country. SCOTUS never likes to admit it, but they do consider the societal reaction to decisions as well. It would just be REALLY poor timing to nerf AA in the wake of all the news coverage of police brutality/killings + protests + Dallas + BLM coverage + Trump + white supremacists. Nixing AA would be like throwing a pile of wood on top of a forest fire.

If they do rule Fisher it will be with the narrowest scope. My guess is they may even defer back down to the lower courts and just let this ruling itself stand. Plus Justice Roberts seems thoroughly unconvinced that AA actually denied Fisher entrance into Texas. Idk... I just don't get that tingly feeling that SCOTUS is about to do something as groundbreaking as nerfing AA. Especially off the strength of a little white girl with mediocre grades bitching about not getting into UTexas (which I read she was still granted conditional acceptance to in the spring semester or some shit).

They ruled already. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 1_4g15.pdf

A. Nony Mouse wrote:They ruled already. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 1_4g15.pdf

Damn I feel stupid, but oddly vindicated in the way that I was at least right in my guesses lol.

I feel even better knowing that there's nothing in the way of URM boost now

That #BeckyWithTheBadGrades hashtag was REAL after this ruling.

#StayMadAbby