Fisher
V. Texas
(2008)
Case
Overview:
In today’s academia
environment the persistent of students
in higher education continues to be a critical issue. Race and affirmative
action also seem to be an admission’s hot topic and in the case Fisher v. Texas
(2008) was no exemption.
As a result from the Grutter v. Bollinger
case , Texas law (1997) has guaranteed in-state applicants who are in
the top 10 percent of their high school’s graduating class admission to any
public university in the state (chronicle, 2008). Texas adopted this percentage plan because many of the
states high schools are largely segregated by housing patterns, not law. “Although
Texas is rapidly becoming a “majority minority state,” the demographic profile
of the two public flagships has failed to keep pace with the growth of admitted
to the public flagships actually enroll, both institutions will weaken their
reach in educating a leadership class for the Senate’s rapidly growing minority
population” (Tienda, 2003).).
Abigail Noel Fisher
filed a lawsuit in federal court,
because she was rejected from the University if Texas Austin. The suit charges
that Fisher would have otherwise been admitted-but for the affirmative action
as practiced by the university (Inside HigherEd, 2008). However, Fisher’s case
does not challenge the 10 percent law, rather it contends that UT-Austin
unlawfully uses racial and ethnic criteria to select other students (Houston
Chronicle,2008 ).The admissions policies and procedures currently applied by
Defendants discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of her race in violation
of her right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment of
the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, and federal civil
rights statutes, 42 U.S.C.( United States District Court). Fisher is seeking
that her application be re-evaluated under race neutral criteria and requiring
UT-Austin to admit her so long as she is qualified under race-neutral criteria.
She is also seeking attorney fees as well as all other relief the Court finds
appropriate and just (United States District Court).
What
is the 10
percent plan?
Some major findings
from this 10 percentage plan are, there
is insufficient evidence to suggest that percentage plans, even with other
race-conscious processes, are effective alternatives to using race/ethnicity as
a factor in admissions processes; percent plans only set basic requirement for
who can automatically be admitted to a campus or to a system so the
implementation of the plan at individual institutions varies dramatically.
Therefore, there is no standard model to which to compare how well these plans
work or whether they could be replicated; and The University of Texas at Austin
(UT) consciously supplements the 10 percent plan with outreach and scholarship
programs (The Civil Rights Project Group, 2003). Also the percent plans are not
implements to serve as an alternative to affirmative action. . The plan was
established to promote racial and ethnic diversity on campuses. Such states as
Texas, Florida, and California have low levels of minority access to higher
education even before losing race-conscious affirmative action, thus have
adopted this plan to better serve the community at large.
Impacting
Roles:
The Good:
The Fisher V. Texas
(2008), case could have possible
impacting roles for both California and Florida public universities. Yet, some
studies have shown that this plan has brought about great racial diversity and
has made a larger audience more aware of their higher education access options.
State Rep. Helen Giddings, who represents Dallas and is a co-author of the 1997
top-10-percent law, a Democrat, argued that the 10-percent plan increases the
chances that students from many districts around the state can attend the
university system's flagship institution (Chronicle, 2007).
The Bad:
Due to this law now
over 70 percent of the students at the
University of Texas Austin were accepted because they were students who
graduated in the top 10 percent of their class. Many fear the day when the all
the freshman seats will be filled with 10 percenters, due to the lack of cap on
this policy. Earlier this week, University of Texas
(UT) President William Powers
discussed one unintended consequence of the Ten Percent Plan. Eighty-one
percent of Texas freshmen were admitted through the 10 percent rule. If
lawmakers don’t change the policy for 2009, says Powers, UT will run out of
room for students who are not admitted under the policy ( American Civil Rights
Institute, 2008).