Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

October-10-12

SCOTUS Hears Affirmative Action Case

The US Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today in affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Texas. This is the third time the Court has considered affirmative action in higher education in 35 years. In its two previous rulings the court has decided that race may be one of many factors considered in the admissions process, but racial quotas are prohibited.

The case, brought by Abagail Fisher, a Caucasian student claiming to have been denied admissions at the University of Texas at Austin on account of her race, could "eliminate diversity as a rationale sufficient to justify any use of race in admission decisions." The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit previously ruled in favor of the University of Texas, indicating that the university had not violated the civil or constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.

Ninety-eight friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed in the Fisher v. University of Texas case- seventy-three of those briefs argue for the court to uphold affirmative action. The last time the Supreme Court heard an affirmative action case, Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in the 5-to-4 ruling to prohibit public colleges and universities from using a points system in admissions decisions to increase minority admissions, but ruled that the schools could account for race in other ways to promote diversity. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, widely considered the current court's swing voter, dissented that decision in 2003 and has never voted to uphold an affirmative action program in his career.

Justice Elena Kagan, having worked on the case during her term as solicitor general, has disqualified herself from hearing the case. Therefore, it is possible that the decision could be a 4-to-4 tie, effectively upholding the lower court's decision in favor of the University of Texas. However, NPR reports that experts think this outcome is highly unlikely, "and that the court accepted this case for the very purpose of either reversing its past affirmative action rulings, or making such plans so restrictive that they are possible in theory, but not in practice."

Media Resources: Feminist Daily Newswire 2/22/12; NPR 10/10/12; NY Times 10/10/12


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

8/31/2015 Afghan Women Awarded for Women's Rights Advocacy - Ten Afghan women activists were awarded a prestigious prize and honor last week for their courageous fight for women's rights. . . .
 
8/31/2015 Chicago Activists Continue Hunger Strike to Save Predominately Black Public High School - Chicago residents have entered the second week of their hunger strike protesting the closure of Dyett High School, in the predominately African-American Bronzeville neighborhood located on the South Side of Chicago. Parents and community members are calling on the Chicago Board of Education to keep Dyett - the only open-enrollment, neighborhood school in its area - open and accept a community plan to revitalize the school with a focus on science and green technology. . . .
 
8/28/2015 Alaska Court Protects Abortion Access for Low-Income Women - The Alaska Superior Court struck down a state law yesterday that would have severely limited abortion access for low-income women in Alaska. The state's Superior Court also struck down a Department of Health and Social Services regulation that placed narrow specifications on Medicaid coverage for abortions, requiring that Medicaid-funded abortions be determined by a physician to be "medically necessary." Last year, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Planned Parenthood sued on behalf of the Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, claiming that the narrow definition of "medically necessary" arbitrarily established conditions designed to restrict the ability of low-income women to access abortion services. The law was temporarily blocked last July by an Alaskan state court judge. Superior Court Judge John Suddock ordered yesterday that the state be blocked from implementing this regulation, ruling that it placed an undue burden on low-income women seeking abortion services in Alaska. "By providing health care to all poor Alaskans except women who need abortions, the challenged regulation violates the state constitutional guarantee of 'equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law'," the ruling read. "We applaud the superior court for striing down these cruel restrictions on women's health and rights that violate the Alaska Constitution," said Chris Charbonneau, CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands. . . .