This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Affirmative Action: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

The decision: the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Texas at Austin can, legally, continue to factor race into admissions decisions.

This case has a lot of history

This isn’t exactly a new issue–or a new case. Affirmative action has been in and out of court for years and Abigail Fisher first brought this particular suit forward in 2012. It made its way up to the Supreme Court in 2013 only to be kicked back to lower courts.

It started back in 2008 when the University of Texas at Austin declined to admit Fisher into the school. Fisher then sued the university, claiming that UT denied her admission because she is Caucasian. Yes, you read that right. Fisher felt disadvantaged for being white.

How did that happen?

UT Austin, being the state’s flagship school, automatically accepts any applicant from a Texas public school who is in the top 10 percent of his or her graduating class. That batch of 90th percentile students makes up about 75 percent of UT’s incoming freshman class. For the last 25 percent, the university combines two scores to evaluate applicants.

Alongside SAT scores and high school grades, which make up an applicant’s Academic Index, students not automatically admitted are given a Personal Achievement Index (PAI). The PAI is UT’s way of giving people credit for non-academic factors like race, economic background, and life experience.

Check out this article: to read more about the case’s background.

So what does today’s ruling mean?

The 4-3 decision upholds the use of affirmative action, to an extent. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated that admissions officers can’t run wild with affirmative action. He wrote:

“The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies”

You can put your fingers away, we did the math for you. Seven of the eight justices weighed in, while Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she was involved as solicitor general.

You can read the opinion here.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Upholds UT Austin’s Affirmative Action Program appeared first on Law Street.

As racial tensions become more visible in the United States, particularly at American universities, the Supreme Court finds itself hearing oral arguments on a major affirmative action case. While legal underpinning for affirmative action has been weakening in recent court decisions, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit seek to end the practice altogether.

The lawsuit, Fisher v. University of Texas, was brought by Abigail Fisher after she was denied acceptance to the University of Texas’ flagship school at Austin. Fisher alleges that while she was not accepted other, less-qualified students were admitted to the school because of their race. UT-Austin has a relatively unique admissions process because the school automatically accepts all students from Texas in the top 10 percent of their high school class. In practice, the actual percentage has been slightly lower since a law modified the rule in 2009, which said that UT-Austin must be able to fill 75 percent of the available residences with students from the top of their high school class. Importantly, though, Fisher was not granted automatic admission and was then forced to be considered using the university’s holistic evaluation process, in which race is considered alongside a wide range of factors.

Interestingly, the university’s 10 percent policy has actually helped increase diversity at UT-Austin. The policy leverages the fact that Texas high schools are often racially homogenous in order to promote diversity. Because many of the state’s high schools are primarily black or primarily white, the top 10 percent admissions policy ends up increasing the number of minority students accepted to the school.

What’s particularly interesting about this case is that there is little evidence to suggest Fisher would have been accepted even if race wasn’t a factor. Instead, the case is more accurately a challenge to the use of race in admissions itself and not a challenge of the school’s particular decision in Fisher’s case. Pro Publica’s candid analysis of the case states the subject of the case pretty clearly: it’s about the conservative view that the Constitution is colorblind and no one should be treated differently based on their race. On the other hand, proponents of affirmative action argue that it is necessary to combat the legacy of racism and inequality in the United States, and by many measures those resulting racial disparities still exist today.

That underlying debate is at the heart of the discussion around the case, and it becomes particularly clear you look at the facts. When Fisher applied to UT-Austin in 2008, the 10 percent rule accounted for about 92 percent of all incoming students from Texas. Although she had good grades Fisher did not meet that qualification. Instead, she was evaluated using the university’s holistic review process  using both an academic index (AI), which is based on test scores and grades, and a personal achievement index (PAI), which is based on two essays, the applicant’s life experiences, and, importantly, “special circumstances” that can range from economic background to race.

Based on the applicant pool, available evidence suggests that her rejection was not a result of her race. This fact is put clearly in the case’s court documents, in which UT-Austin notes,

Because petitioner [Fisher] was not in the top 10 percent of her high school class, her application was considered pursuant to the holistic review process described above… The summary judgment record is uncontradicted that—due to the stiff competition in 2008 and petitioner’s relatively low AI score—petitioner would not have been admitted to the Fall 2008 freshman class even if she had received ‘a “perfect” PAI score of 6.’

Put simply, regardless of Fisher’s score on the personal achievement index, her grades and test scores were too low to grant her admission–meaning that race had nothing to do with the school’s decision as the PAI wasn’t a factor. Fisher was also denied admission to the school’s summer program, but the evidence suggests that the same thing happened. For the summer program, there were better qualified black and white students who did not earn acceptance.

Rather than seeking to correct Fisher’s admissions decision, this case is, transparently, about eliminating affirmative action from the college admissions process. The group funding the lawsuit, the Project on Fair Representation, seeks to “support litigation that challenges racial and ethnic classifications and preferences in state and federal courts.” This ranges from ending affirmative action in admissions and employment to eliminating voting protections for minorities. And so far, the group has had some notable success achieving that goal. In fact, it was the force behind the Shelby County court case that invalidated a major part of the civil rights act a couple years ago.

In the last landmark ruling on affirmative action, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion that allowed schools to use race as a factor for admissions in order to achieve diversity but gave a sort of expiration date on the practice. According to the decision, affirmative action could be used if it was narrowly tailored to promote greater diversity among the student body. In the opinion, she said, “the court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That was 2003, but 12 years later a renewed push to end affirmative action may move that deadline up considerably.

The Supreme Court is now tasked with determining whether affirmative action remains acceptable or if it should be further restricted and possibly eliminated altogether. Notably, Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case because the Justice Department filed a brief on it during her time as Solicitor General. There is a possibility that the Justices split the decision 4-4, in which case the lower court’s ruling in support of the admissions program will hold.

It’s pretty clear that the Justices are not eager to hand down a landmark decision on affirmative action. In fact, they have already heard this case once before but remanded it back to the lower court to evaluate UT-Austin’s use of affirmative action with stricter scrutiny. In oral arguments earlier this week, some of the Justices wanted to stall even further, questioning whether sending it back for a trial could be beneficial. Now that race is at the forefront of political discussion, the court is in a particularly tricky position. The fate of affirmative action programs now hangs in the balance.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Affirmative Action Makes its Way Back to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a little while since my last “People Suck” post, so I thought what better way to revive the Law Street pseudo-series than with a story about a two gun rights groups planning to stage a fake mass shooting at the University of Texas this weekend. Because if people blaring gunshot sounds from bullhorns on a hypersensitive college campus days after the horrific attack in San Bernardino doesn’t scream “People Suck,” I don’t know what else does.

Gun rights groups want to hold a fake mass shooting. There’s no way this could go wrong. https://t.co/lqQ4vmlrAO pic.twitter.com/abJshCIfvw

— PB Post NOW (@PBPostNOW) December 9, 2015

But UT students can expect to see and hear much more than gun shots echoing though their campus. The Open Carry Walk and Crisis Performance Event will also include fake blood, cardboard weapons, and a cast of crisis actors playing first responders.

The event was organized by Come and Take it Texas and DontComply.com in order to protest “gun-free zones” on the campus. Matthew Short, a spokesman for the groups, told Statesman.com,

Criminals that want to do evil things and commit murder go places where people are not going to be able to stop them. When seconds count, the cops are minutes away.

After the demonstration, the groups plan to walk through Austin with loaded weapons, which are currently banned from UT’s campus until next August when a new campus carry law goes into effect. Short explained to the Statesman,

We want criminals to fear the public being armed. An armed society is a polite society.

The groups have said outright that they don’t find the timing of the event to be insensitive at all, despite the mass shooting in San Bernardino being labeled the deadliest terror attack on American soil since 9/11.

But how could it not be?

As news of more and more attacks surface each month, mass shootings have gone from a hypothetical situations that you’ll probably never find yourself in to possible realities. Schools have continued to receive threats of more violence, and some community members find themselves in a state of constant vigil.

Therefore, simulating most Americans’ worst nightmare shouldn’t be at the top of these people’s list. Gun rights activists are more than welcome to hold meeting, demonstrations, and even bake sales for their cause if they so choose, but scarring college students with fake gunshots and blood is just weird and cruel.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post People Suck: Gun Rights Groups Plan Fake Mass Shooting on TX Campus appeared first on Law Street.

There’s two sides to every case. But when the case is about child welfare and the side in need of protection consists of children who cannot defend themselves, the case becomes sensitive. These children need public servants, people who can defend them when they cannot defend themselves. That’s why what Leslie Strauch at the University of Texas School of Law is doing is so important. Strauch is the supervising attorney and clinical professor for UT Law’s Children’s Rights Clinic. Strauch is an excellent example of the type of lawyers our nation needs–she has extensive experience dealing with children and the law. Currently, she helps law students to see the positive impact child welfare law has on society by providing them with the opportunity to aid abused and neglected children.

Law students enrolled in UT Law’s Children’s Rights Clinic participate in trials from start to finish at the Travis County District Court. They receive firsthand experience in researching and preparing the cases as primary attorneys. The Children’s Rights Clinic does not try jury cases every year so kudos are in special order to this year’s participants for their recent victories. This clinical experience is unique to UT Law because Texas is one of the few states that allows family law cases to be heard before a jury.

Strauch spearheaded this year’s first victory with Rebeca Ojeda, an advanced clinic and third-year law student at UT Law. In this case, Ojeda conducted direct and cross examinations of several witnesses, including an expert witness. Strauch and Ojeda were advocating for terminating parental rights, and won the case with a definitive 10-2 verdict. Ojeda expressed feelings of pride for advocating for justice as she watched her clients “nestle into the arms of their future adoptive parents.”

Another student, 3L Brooke Ginsburg, assisted Strauch in this year’s second case. This trial was similar to the first–Child Protective Services aimed to terminate parental rights. Ginsburg received valuable experience by preparing the trial notebook and conducting witness examinations. Strauch and Ginsburg successfully advocated for the child to be adopted by family members. Ginsburg’s firsthand involvement in the case provided her with a fresh perspective. She told The Magazine of the University of Texas School of Law about this new mindset:

The trial put into perspective the importance of each action an attorney takes throughout the life of a case. It was a tremendous learning experience to be part of a jury trial from start to finish. I learned a lot about making arguments and procedural law, but I was most excited to see that with hard work, strategic thinking and preparation an attorney can positively impact a child’s life.

The impacts Ginsburg and Ojeda were able to make on these children through their work exemplifies the importance of child welfare law practice. If more lawyers joined the movement to work as public servants this could benefit both lawyers and at-risk children. It’s not news that many law school grads are having trouble securing work–this is a point that has been drilled into our heads. Yet, we forget to look at the other side and think about the people who are deprived of legal services. In May 2013 The Huffington Post wrote:

A recent report by the non-profit Legal Services Corporation cites estimates that at least 50 percent of Americans who qualify for free legal assistance because of their income or needs don’t get the help they need because legal aid organizations don’t have the funding or capacity to meet their needs. That’s a large number when you consider that 61.4 million Americans qualify for legal assistance from non-profit and government-funded programs — a number that has increased by more than 10 million since 2007.

With more programs like UT Law’s Children’s Rights Clinic, we can begin to close that justice gap. By training more law students for the purpose of public service, they could have a leg up while looking for work, and they could benefit society. After all, how many 5-year-olds do you know who can hire an attorney for themselves? Children make up an alarming number of the millions of people who are deprived of legal aid. The effects the movement toward public service could have on our nation’s legal industry would be hugely beneficial. That being said, this is no easy fix. Resources would have to be redistributed to meet the salary needs of public attorneys and student loan programs would have to be redefined. However, this could be a huge game-changer for the legal field. I think more people should give it a try, and I applaud UT Law and Leslie Strauch for their efforts.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Takashi Toyooka via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UT Law’s Children’s Rights Clinic: Public Service Excellence appeared first on Law Street.