Analysis of Three Supreme Court Cases Essay Example

age. Allan had applied to join the California Medical School at Davis for two instances, but unfortunately, he was rejected in both. The University had an affirmative action which ensured that sixteen admission slots in every hundred admissions were reserved for the minority and yet qualified candidates. This was to ensure that there was no inequality when it came to admission in the medical field. Bakke had higher qualifications than any of the minority students who had been admitted, and after his application being rejected twice, he filed a case at Burger court and then California Supreme Court claiming that he was being barred from admission by race.

In response to whether the university violated the equal protection clause which was the Fourteenth Amendment and also the Rights Act of the year 1964, by putting in place an affirmative policy that led to rejection of Bakke’s application, the judges decided that the university had violated the Rights Act and the medical school was ordered to admit Bakke. The judges, however, agreed that the use of race as an admission criterion was constitutionally acceptable. However, by ordering the admission of Bakke, a white man, the courts showed that they would do anything to protect the whites against rejection based on equality criterion.

Evidently, California University had a right to reject the application of Bakke in accordance with the affirmative policy which ensured that 16% of all the admitted students were from the minority group. Despite this fact, the Supreme Court went ahead and ordered his admission which was against the university's affirmative action regardless of the fact that all the judges agreed that using race as one of

the admission criteria was constitutionally permissible. This according to me is not right, and the Supreme Court should not have ordered the admission of Bakke. The university was right in ensuring that the diversity was maintained in Universities and other institutions of higher learning. This will ensure that the students get to interact with people from diverse backgrounds thus ensuring that every student is exposed to diverse cultures, religions, and ethnicities.

Grutter versus Bollinger Analysis

In this case, the Petitioner was Grutter whereas the Respondent was Bollinger. The case was first presented in Rehnquist Court, and the appeal was heard and determined by the United States Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit. This case first came to light in the year 1997 whereby Barbara Grutter, who was a white resident of Michigan, sought admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Having scored an undergraduate GPA of 3.8 and LSAT score of 161 she was rejected from the law school.

This was due to the admission criteria of the law school that sought to ensure that race was one of the admission criteria in the bid of maintaining diversity amongst the student body. The district court had decided that the use of race as an admission criterion was not very compelling and thus wanted the school to stop using it. However, when the case was presented before the United States Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit, the Judges overturned the decision of the District Court by considering the previous decision that use of race as an admission criterion was permissible in the effort of maintaining diversity in institutions of higher learning

The decision of the United States court of

appeal for Sixth Circuit was right in overturning the earlier decision of the district court that race should not be used as an admission criterion in the bid to maintain diversity in the universities. By maintaining diversity, the law students in University of Michigan Law School would be in a better condition to understand other cultures, religions, ethnicities and beliefs, which would help them in their future law careers and also in their academic performance in the university.

Fisher versus University of Texas Analysis

This was a case involving Abigail n. Fisher who was the petitioner and the respondent was the University of Texas at Austin, et al. The case was first determined by Roberts court before an appeal being tabled at United States Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit. This case emanated from an enactment of law in the year 1997 requiring Texas University to admit all high school seniors who had achieved a top ten percent rank in their respective classes. In so doing, the University noted that there was roaming racial disparity and thus decided to enact an affirmative policy whereby all those students who were ranked top-ten percent in their classes would be admitted but the rest of the admissions would use race as an admission criterion.

There was one student by the name Abigail N. Fisher who was a Caucasian female and had applied for admission to Texas University in the year 2008. Having not been amongst the top ten percent students in her class, she was subjected to a race-based admission criterion and unfortunately her application was rejected. She, therefore, filed a lawsuit against the university claiming that using race as one

of the factors of admission was in violation of the equal protection clause enshrined in the 14th amendment. The university in its defense argued that the use of race as a factor in admission was tailored to ensure that diversity was maintained in the University.

The district court had ruled in favor of the University of Texas and the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit upheld the decision of the district court. Fisher went ahead to appeal to the Supreme Court in the year 2012, and his case was kept pending until the year 2016 whereby upon its hearing, the Supreme Court upheld the districts court's decision. Fisher's argument was that the University admissions officials could as well use race as an admission factor, but it should be amongst many other factors that can help in ensuring that there is a diverse student body.

In my personal stand, I believe that Fisher had a strong case and the decision made by the Supreme Court was not right. Despite the fact that using race as a factor in university admission, there was also other underlying factors that would also help in the attainment of diversity in institutions of higher learning. The fact that the Supreme Court postponed this case for close to four years shows that there was malice when reaching the final verdict.

Conclusion

It is evident that the Supreme Court did not make the right decision in the first case involving Regents of the University of California versus Bakke. This is evident since the court ordered the admission of Bakke despite having been cut out by the affirmative policy. This shows that the judges were

trying to protect Bakke, a white man, from the unfavourable affirmative policy. Next case involving Grutter versus the decision made by the Supreme Court whereby it overturned the previous ruling by the district court was wise and calculated especially after the Regents of the University of California versus Bakke case. The court accepted that using race as one of the factors during university admission was viable with the aim of maintaining diversity.

Finally, the case involving Fisher and University of Texas was unprofessionally handled by all the three courts, more so the Supreme Court. Evidently, race should be used as one of the criteria for University admission, but it should also be accompanied by other underlying factors which can help in creating a diverse students body. With a diverse student’s body, there will be improved performance and also students would get to understand different cultures, ethnicities, religions, races and beliefs which can be of immense help in their future careers.