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
10/31/2014 Federal Judge Exempts Another Catholic University from Birth Control Coverage - A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Ave Maria University, a Catholic university in Florida, does not have to comply with federal rules meant to ensure that covered employees can exercise their right to obtain birth control at no cost.
The Affordable Care Act requires all new health insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives - such as the pill, emergency contraceptives, and IUDs - without charging co-pays, deductibles or co-insurance. . . .
10/31/2014 Women of Color in Tennessee Are United in Opposition to Amendment 1 - Just days before the general election in Tennessee, a coalition of community leaders, clergy, and advocates led a press conference encouraging women of color to vote no on Amendment 1, a dangerous and far-reaching measure on the state's ballot.
SisterReach, a grassroots organization focused on "empowering, organizing, and mobilizing women and girls in the community around their reproductive and sexual health to make informed decisions about themselves," organized the press conference "to call attention to the unique concerns Black and poor communities throughout Shelby County and across the state of Tennessee face on a daily basis" and to emphasize how the upcoming election "could further limit [black women's] reproductive, economic, political, and social autonomy."
"We assemble today to impress upon black women and women of color, many of whom are heads of households, to get out and vote," said SisterReacher Founder and CEO Cherisse Scott at the event.
SisterReach has been educating voters about the particularly dangerous impact of Amendment 1 on women of color. . . .
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1.
The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .