UT Austin on the ‘hook’

 

Charles Landriault
The Signal
The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments Oct. 10 in Abigail Noel Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin, a case based on affirmative action that could change the way colleges admit students going forward.

Abigail Fisher, a white student from Sugar Land, Texas, sued the University of Texas at Austin after she was denied admission in 2008 citing but for the color of skin, she would have been admitted.

“There were people in my class with lower grades who weren’t in all the activities I was in who were being accepted into UT,” Fisher said while being videotaped answering questions for the Project on Fair Representation’s website.  “The only other difference between us was the color of our skin.”

Graduating with a 3.59 GPA, Fisher was in the top 12 percent of her high school class, just 2 percent shy of the state’s Top 10 Percent Law, a law enacted in 1997 that guarantees admission to students graduating in the top 10 percent of their high school class.

“I took a ton of AP classes, studied hard and did my homework and made the honor roll,” Fisher said.

UT filed its brief as respondent in the matter Aug. 6 citing that, “UT has learned through experience that diversity has invaluable educational benefits,” and “better prepares students to become the next generation of leaders in an increasingly diverse work force and society.”

UT’s admissions policy closely follows the Grutter v. Bollinger decision, decided in 2003, which prohibits racial quotas, yet acknowledges the importance of diversity and allows universities to consider race, as well as other factors, while admitting students.

“UT’s brief focuses on the fact that we are closely following the Grutter decision, the previous Supreme Court decision,” said UT President William Powers.

In its brief, university representatives stated that the Top 10 Percent Law decides admissions on one single criterion but does not provide enough basis to create a diverse student body; the holistic review process, which rates applicants on test scores, essays, activities, socioeconomic status, cultural background, as well as race and ethnicity, gives the university an edge to create the diversity it needs on campus.

“Holistic review allows for the consideration of a broad array of factors and thus fosters a broad diversity, including diversity within different racial groups,” UT’s University Media Relations stated in an Aug. 6 press release.

Filling 75 percent of its in-state admissions under the Top 10 Percent Law, UT accepts the remaining quarter of applicants through the process of holistic review.

Powers believes that UT’s admission policy is a crucial part in making better leaders for the future.

“We have a narrowly tailored admissions approach that makes modest use of ethnicity in a holistic review that looks at a lot of characteristics that make for good students and good leaders for the future,” Powers said.

Affirmative action has been a contentious issue throughout history since its inception during the presidency of President John F. Kennedy.

Executive Order 10925, which established Equal Employment Opportunity to eliminate racial discrimination, provided that contractors doing business with the government “will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during their employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin,” and was solidified by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Affirmative action was not an important step in job and education equality; it was a necessary step,” said Steve Johnson, assistant treasurer with the NAACP San Antonio branch.  “Because without it, affirmative action was not being accomplished.”

Central to Fisher’s case is whether or not UT should have reintroduced racial and ethnic preferences after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Grutter.

Fisher’s counsel, provided by the Project on Fair Representation, argued that in 2003 (prior to the Grutter ruling), UT had a race-neutral policy in place that was extremely effective in achieving diversity, so the reintroduction of racial preferences was unnecessary, thus unconstitutional.

Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, a legal defense fund that supports litigation that challenges racial and ethnic classifications and preferences, spoke out about the case in a press release dated Feb. 21.

“It is deeply troubling that UT has justified its racial-preference policies based upon the lack of undergraduate ‘classroom diversity,’” Blum said.  “If allowed to remain a goal, UT and hundreds of other schools will be permitted to racially gerrymander every classroom in order to achieve proportional racial balance.  This is gravely wrong.”

Fisher’s counsel argued that the effectiveness of the Top 10 Percent Law created a significantly more diverse class because statistics showed that 21.4 percent of the freshmen entering UT were African American and Hispanic, a rise from 15.3 percent in 1997.

“The Supreme Court may use this case to dismantle affirmative action in higher education,” said Ashley Packard, professor of Communication and Digital Media Studies.

William Hoston, assistant professor of Political Science and program convener, is concerned about the effects Fisher’s case could have on students’ futures beyond the university.

“Diversity on college campuses is very important,” Hoston said.  “Any profession you enter will have individuals from diverse groups, and, when exposed in college, this allows students to enter the workforce with an understanding of how to interact with co-workers.”

UHCL’s current admissions policies do not factor race and ethnicity as bases for acceptance.  Yvette Bendeck, associate vice president of enrollment management, attributes the location and Houston’s diversity as major deciding factors that provide the “changing profile” of UHCL.

“Over the past decade, UHCL has been able to achieve a more diverse student population,” Bendeck said. “UHCL has been classified by the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities as a Hispanic Serving Institution since 2010.”

Even with the minority numbers at UHCL on the rise, Linda Bullock, assistant dean of student diversity, points out that UHCL continues to strive to achieve an even more diverse faculty.

“I think UHCL is very diverse,” Bullock said.  “There are some individuals on campus that have pushed really hard to help make this campus more diverse, but we still have some areas to work on.  Where I believe we do have under-represented diversity is in the faculty.  I believe the highest under-represented minority within our faculty is Hispanics.”

While Bullock contends that diversity at UHCL is on the right track, she is still a proponent for affirmative action.

“I know we need it in universities and colleges,” Bullock said.  “If people are continually fighting to stop it simply because they are not accepted into an institution of their choice, why would we not need it?  Education should be available to everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, culture or class.  Why are so many lawsuits being filed?  It is simply an entitlement issue.”

Though not speaking to the media about her case, Fisher did speak out in a press release dated Feb. 21.

“A good start to stopping discrimination would be getting rid of the boxes on applications, male, female, race, whatever,” Fisher said.   “Those don’t tell the admissions people what type of student you are or how involved you are, all they do is put you into a box; get rid of the box… I hope the Court will decide that all future UT applicants will be allowed to compete for admission without their race or ethnicity being a factor.”

A final decision from the Supreme Court has not yet been disseminated.