From Mike Hitchen Online Let's Hear You! presents selected news and information from non profit organizations and individuals promoting community or rights oriented issues.
Items are selected from a wide range of sources and are not confined to major or international issues. Submissions from individuals or organizations (large or small) are welcome.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Finds the University of Texas-Austin Race Preferences Constitutional
A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals found the racial and ethnic classifications and preferences
of the Univ. of Texas's admissions polices to be constitutional.
The case, Abigail Fisher v. Univ. of Texas, was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 24, 2013. In a 7-1 opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy (Justice Kagan
recused), the justices vacated an earlier ruling by the same
three-judge panel writing that the Fifth Circuit did not properly apply
the correct legal standard for using race preferences in the admissions
process. The case was then remanded back to the panel for the
application of the proper legal standard know as "strict scrutiny."
Last November, during arguments in Austin, Texas
before the panel, Ms. Fisher's lawyers argued that UT was precluded
from using racial and ethnic classifications and preferences because of
the success of the race-neutral Top Ten Percent Plan which resulted in
greater minority diversity at UT than did an earlier racial preference
program. Strict scrutiny requires that a university implement
race-neutral admissions policies to achieve diversity before lastly
resorting to race preferences.
said, "It is disappointing that the judges hearing my case are not
following the Supreme Court's ruling last summer. I remain committed to
continuing this lawsuit even if it means we appeal to the Supreme Court
added, "It is a shame that for the last six years, hundreds of UT
applicants were denied admission because of UT's racial and ethnic
director of the Project on Fair Representation (POFR), said, "While
disappointing, this opinion was not unexpected based upon the
questioning and comments made by the court during our last hearing in
continued, "This panel was proven wrong last year by the Supreme Court
and we believe it will be proven wrong once again on appeal."
POFR is a legal defense foundation based in Alexandria, Virginia that has provided pro bono legal representation to individuals and jurisdictions in a number of important U.S. Supreme Court cases, including in NW Austin MUD v. Holder, Shelby Co. Ala. v. Holder and Abigail Fisher v. Univ. of Texas-Austin.