Abigail Fisher: Affirmative action plaintiff 'proud' of academic record

"I'm a plaintiff in a pretty interesting Supreme Court case that's been to the Supreme Court twice," says the young woman sitting across the table from me, introducing herself for the tape as I adjust the levels on my recorder.

That's putting it mildly. Abigail Fisher's case against the University of Texas at Austin (UT) thrust her into the very centre of heated and overlapping public debates about race and identity, integration, privilege and education in the United States.

Fisher brought the case because she wanted to stop the university from using race in the admissions process, arguing that as a white woman she had lost out on a place because preferential treatment was given to black and other minority students.

But in June 2016 the Supreme Court decided to uphold UT's affirmative action practices and reject her complaint.

Read the full BBC story here.

American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity Statement on the Gallup Opinion Poll on Affirmative Action

Association takes issue with July 8th Opinion Poll on Affirmative Action and calls it "Misleading and Inaccurate"

Washington, DC, July 20, 2016 - The American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity (AAAED), an association of equal opportunity, affirmative action, diversity and human resources professionals, has taken issue with an opinion poll's results published by Inside Higher Ed (IHE) on July 8, 2016.

The article is titled "Poll: Public Opposes Affirmative Action." This poll was released on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin case, where the plaintiff, Abigail Fisher, claimed that the University violated the Constitution by using race as a factor in admitting students. Ms. Fisher failed to gain admission. The Court held in favor of the University. 

In a letter to Inside Higher Ed dated July 13, 2016, AAAED wrote:
"At issue is the way the questions were presented, which yielded the predictable results. The primary question posed is: 'Which comes closer to your view about evaluating students for admission into a college or university - applicants should be admitted solely on the basis of merit, even if that results in few minority students being admitted....?'"

The Association's letter stated: "The decision is never race vs. merit. Selective colleges and universities have for decades considered a number of factors including test scores and grades. Geography, athletics, musical ability and other talents, socio-economic status, legacies, being first generation college-going, or extra-curricular activities are examples of these factors."
"Race is also not simply a matter of skin color and is an equally valid consideration as is athletic ability or socio-economic status," added AAAED Executive Director Shirley J. Wilcher. The letter states: Race "reflects experiences as members of minority groups, like, e.g., being profiled by police or subjected to sub-standard schools."

Read the Inside Higher Ed article here.

Read the complete AAAED statement here.

Read the AAAED letter to Inside Higher Ed here.

AAAED Webinar: "The Fisher Decision: What it Means to Educators, Employers and Diversity/AA Professionals"

On June 23, 2016 the United States Supreme Court upheld the consideration of race as one of many factors in the admissions program of the University of Texas at Austin. The American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity (AAAED), which filed two amicus curiae briefs in support of the University of Texas' admissions program, hailed the decision. AAAED News Release on Fisher .                                 

On July 12, 2016, the AAAED attorneys who drafted the briefs will hold a webinar to discuss the Court's decision and its implications for educators, employers and AA/Diversity professionals.

The July 12, 2016 Webinar will be presented by:

Matthew Camardella, Esq., Jackson Lewis PC
Marilynn Schuyler, Esq., Schuyler Affirmative Action Practice
Dean Sparlin, Esq., Sparlin Law
Joe Weiner, Esq., Littler Mendelson P.C

Attorneys Camardella, Schuyler and Sparlin serve on the board of AAAED.

Register for the AAAED Webinar here.

3 Key Takeaways From the Supreme Court’s Decision on Race-Conscious Admissions

To many observers, the Supreme Court’s 4-to-3 decision on Thursday that upheld the use of race-conscious admissions at the University of Texas at Austin came as a surprise.

Even inside the court, it seems: “Something strange has happened,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito in the first line of his dissent, “since our prior decision in this case.” In 2013 the court ruled that a lower court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, had not applied enough scrutiny to Austin’s admissions program, and ordered it to revisit the case. The appeals court then effectively affirmed its prior decision. That judgment was appealed once again to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments in December.

Some Supreme Court cases were expected to deadlock after Justice Antonin Scalia, a vocal critic of affirmative action in admissions, died in February. But his death was not expected to alter the outcome of the Texas case because Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself. During her time as U.S. solicitor general, Justice Kagan had been involved with the Obama administration’s submission of a brief supporting the university. Her recusal left just seven justices to decide the case.

Read the full Chronicle of Higher Education analysis here.

Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action Program at University of Texas

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin, handing supporters of affirmative action a major victory.

The vote was 4-3. Only seven justices participated in the decision, as Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself for prior work on the case as United States solicitor general and the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat remains vacant.

Read the full New York Times story here.

View the complete text of the Supreme Court decision here.

Will Supreme Court end affirmative action in college admissions?

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected soon to issue a ruling on affirmative action in college admissions, in a case called Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Plaintiff Abigail Fisher, a white woman denied admission to UT, is challenging the constitutionality of UT’s consideration of race and ethnicity as a factor in assembling an undergraduate class. A ruling could come as early as Thursday morning.

Read the story here.

Victory is Defeat: The Ironic Consequence of Justice Scalia's Death for Fisher v. University of Texas

By Vinay Harpalani, Savannah Law School

With the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court would seemingly be at a 4-4 impasse on many charged cases. However, in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin II — the pending case about race-conscious university admissions at the University of Texas at Austin (UT), Justice Scalia’s death actually eliminates the possibility of a tie, because Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case. Seven Justices will now decide the fate of Fisher II, with Justice Anthony Kennedy in his usual role of swing vote. If Kennedy votes to strike down UT’s race-conscious admissions policy, then Scalia’s absence will not matter much. Under that scenario, Kennedy’s opinion would control Fisher II either with Scalia (5-3 vote, commanding a majority on the Court) or without him (4-3 majority on the Court). Either of these would reverse the 5th Circuit and set precedent. However, if Kennedy votes to uphold UT’s policy, then Scalia’s absence matters, because rather than a 4-4 tie with no precedential value, Kennedy could write a 4-3 majority opinion. Moreover, because UT’s policy is more modest than the University of Michigan Law School policy upheld in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), Kennedy could actually uphold it and still further limit the scope of constitutionally acceptable race-conscious admissions policies. If that happens, proponents of affirmative action will have to wonder whether to call it victory or defeat.

Read the article here.

How an Attempt to Boost Diversity at Texas Colleges Could Kill Affirmative Action

By by Matthew Watkins and Neena Satija, Texas Tribune

On Dec. 9, a lawyer for Abigail Fisher stood before the U.S. Supreme Court ready to argue that the University of Texas at Austin was discriminating against white applicants.

He planned to make the case that his client was unfairly denied admission into the university because of her race. And affirmative action opponents hoped that Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin would bring an end to the use of race as a factor in college admissions.

But less than 90 seconds into his introduction, Fisher’s lawyer was interrupted by a question about Texas’ Top 10 Percent Rule. And for much of the next hour, the justices and attorneys argued over the intricacies of the state’s unusual college admissions law, which guarantees a spot in any state college to Texans who graduate near the top of their high school senior class.

Read the story here.

Antonin Scalia’s Death Probably Won’t Affect ‘Fisher,’ but It Could Change the Future of Affirmative Action

By Eric Hoover and Eric Kelderman, The Chronicle of Higher Education

The death on Saturday of Antonin Scalia, the sharp-tongued justice who shaped constitutional debates for nearly 30 years, could end up shifting the Supreme Court’s ideological balance. But his absence is unlikely to affect the highly anticipated ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the pending legal challenge to race-conscious college-admissions policies. In short, the math still seems to favor the court’s conservative wing.

Read the story here.

Related content:

• How Scalia’s Death Affects the State of Affirmative Action (Harvard Political Review)
• What Antonin Scalia’s Death May Mean for the ‘Fisher’ Affirmative-Action Case (The Chronicle of Higher Education)
• Antonin Scalia, Justice on the Supreme Court, Dies at 79 (The New York Times)
• Scalia's Record on Higher Education and Pending Affirmative Action Case (Inside Higher Ed)
• What are the Short- and Long-Term Employment Law Implications of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's Death? (Littler Mendelson PC)
• Law School Affiliates Remember Alum Scalia for Fiery Personality, Contributions to Law (Harvard Crimson)
• Justice Antonin Scalia: His Life and Career (The New York Times)
• Scalia’s Death Could Affect Affirmative Action Lawsuits (Harvard Crimson)
• Justice Scalia's Death Leads To Employer Uncertainty (Fisher & Phillips LLP)
• The Impact of Justice Scalia’s Passing on Pending Supreme Court Cases (Foley & Lardner LLP)
• A Closer Look at a Comment From Justice Scalia That Sparked Outrage (The Chronicle of Higher Education)
• Justice Scalia’s Death May Have Implications for Affirmative Action (INSIGHT Into Diversity)
• Every Vote Counts: The Scalia Legacy And The Future Of Employment Class Actions Before The Supreme Court (Seyfarth Shaw LLP)
• Where Scalia's Vote Was Decisive (The American Prospect)
• Tameka Porter: The mismatch myth (The Hill)

California and Michigan: Don't Ban Affirmative Action

George E. Curry

WASHINGTON - If you want to know what the University of Texas student body would like if the Supreme Court invalidates the institution's affirmative action admissions program now under judicial review, look no farther than Michigan and California.

Read the story here.

Related content:

• Academe Must Confront Its Racist Past (The Chronicle of Higher Education)
• Why affirmative action matters in the larger social and racial justice movement: An Asian American perspective (Huffington Post)
• Diversity Matters: Why American Universities Need Affirmative Action (Essence)
• Area colleges defend affirmative action practices (Boston Globe)
• The Real Reason Affirmative Action Is in Danger (National Journal)
• Scalia made headlines. But the real story is how colleges have failed to truly integrate (The Washington Post)
• 5 Things To Know About The Woman Whose Case Could End Affirmative Action As We Know It (Huffington Post)

As SCOTUS Hears Affirmative Action Arguments, Asian American Advocates Weigh In

By Kevin Lamarque, Reuters

As oral arguments began this week in a Supreme Court case that could deal a blow to affirmative action, sociologist Jennifer Lee says she hopes Asian-American parents who are against the concept realize that it represents a net positive for the Asian-American community.

Read the story here.

• Why affirmative action matters in the larger social and racial justice movement: An Asian American perspective (Huffington Post)
• What Role Do Asian Americans Have in the Campus Protests? (The Atlantic)

Black scientists respond to Scalia's suggestion that 'less advanced' classes are more suitable

By Dexter Thomas, The Los Angeles Times

When Chanda Prescod-Weinstein left her home in Los Angeles and headed off to Harvard for her freshman year, the undercurrents were both predictable and fierce.

“You only got in because you’re black,” classmates told her. If not for affirmative action, they said, you'd never be a student on a campus like this.

They were wrong.

Read the story here.

Related content:

• The ‘Benefits’ of Black Physics Students (The New York Times)
• Morehouse College Generates 13 Percent of Black Computer Science Ph.D. Students (Atlanta Black Star)
• OpEd: Why Justice Scalia was Wrong about Black Scientists (NBC News)
• Scalia Black Scientists Controversy: Amid Affirmative Action Debate, Supreme Court Justice Says African-Americans Better Served By 'Slower Track' (International Business Times)
• Scalia says most black scientists went to 'lesser' colleges (PolitiFact)

Supreme Court Laments How Little It Really Knows About Race-Conscious Admissions

By Peter Schmidt, The Chronicle of Higher Education

The Supreme Court’s proceedings resembled a debate over educational research more than a fight over constitutional principles as the justices heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a challenge to race-conscious admissions at the University of Texas at Austin.

Read the story here.

Click here for the facts about the Fisher v. University of Texas case by the New York Times.

Related content:

• ‘This Case Shouldn’t Be Here Again’: Activists Outside the Supreme Court on ‘Fisher’ and Race (The Chronicle of Higher Education)
• Supreme Court Justices’ Comments Don’t Bode Well for Affirmative Action (The New York Times)
• Argument analysis: Now, three options on college affirmative action (SCOTUSblog)
• U.S. Supreme Court closely split on use of affirmative action at universities (Los Angeles Times)
• George E. Curry: Don’t be Fooled by ‘Silent Clarence’ Thomas (Afro American)
• Thurgood Marshall and the Need for Affirmative Action (The New Yorker)

On Justice Scalia's comments about race:

• Supreme Court Justice Scalia Proves Why Affirmative Action Is Needed 50 Years After it Was Signed Into Law (Huffington Post)
• Scalia and affirmative action: How much has changed since segregation was the law? (Los Angeles Times)
• Does Affirmative Action Create Mismatches Between Students and Universities? (The Atlantic)
• Dear Supreme Court: No, Black Students Don't Need to Go to 'Lesser' Schools (Teen VOGUE)
• Here’s what Antonin Scalia doesn’t get about affirmative action (The Washington Post)
• With Remarks in Affirmative Action Case, Scalia Steps Into ‘Mismatch’ Debate (The New York Times)
• New Study Fuels Debate Over ‘Mismatch’ Theory in Race-Conscious Admissions (The Chronicle of Higher Education -- requires paid subscription)
• Supreme court's affirmative action comments are 'dead wrong' experts say (The Guardian)
• Scalia’s ‘Mismatch Theory’ a Foe to Diversity, Inclusion (Diverse Issues in Higher Education)
• The Justices' Questions on Affirmative Action (Inside Higher Ed)
• A Closer Look at a Comment From Justice Scalia That Sparked Outrage (The Chronicle of Higher Education)
• Scalia questions place of some black students in elite colleges (CNN)
• Justice Scalia Questions Whether Blacks Ought to Be At Top Tier Universities (The Root)
• Scalia: Black Students Don’t Need Affirmative Action Because They Benefit From A ‘Slower Track’ (ThinkProgress)

Click here for the 'Supreme Court audio of Justice Antonin Scalia saying maybe black students don't belong at elite universities.'

Reversing Affirmative Action Would Send Us Backwards on Race

The Supreme Court must support the goal of a racially integrated society

By Lee Bollinger, TIME

When the Supreme Court revisits affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas on Dec. 9, the legalistic discussion of narrowly tailored means and race-neutral alternatives will obscure a more basic question: Do the searing events and protests that began in Ferguson, Mo., and continue to echo across the country leave any doubt about how far we have to go to overcome racial discrimination and to achieve a truly integrated society?

Read the story here.

Related content:

• Thurgood Marshall and the Need for Affirmative Action (The New Yorker)
• Ahead of Fisher Showdown, Experts Defend Affirmative Action (Diverse Issues in Higher Education)
• What the Supreme Court Will Be Asking as It Revisits Affirmative Action (The Chronicle of Higher Education)
• How this Supreme Court case could change college affirmative action (The Christian Science Monitor)
• Al Sharpton: Why We Must Affirm Affirmative Action (The Huffington Post)
• To fight racial isolation on campus, start with admissions (Sherrilyn Ifill , NAACP LDF in the Washington Post)
• The Upcoming Fisher v. University of Texas Affirmative Action Case Is About More than College Admissions (The Huffington Post)
• Abigail Fischer, SCOTUS, And What The Rhetoric About ‘Reverse Discrimination’ Ignores (ThinkProgress)
• Elise Boddie: Why Supreme Court Justices Should Celebrate College Diversity, Not Reject It (The New York Times)

Students’ Protests May Play Role in Supreme Court Case on Race in Admissions

By Adam Liptak, The New York Times

WASHINGTON — As student protests over racial injustice are exploding at campuses across the nation, the Supreme Court is preparing to hear a major case that could put an end to racial preferences in college admissions.

The tense atmosphere on campuses may alter the legal dynamic when the case is argued on Dec. 9. “It’s quite possible,” said Michael C. Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, “that the way the court frames the discussion will be colored by the justices’ views of the campus protests.”

Read the story here.

Related content:

• What Are Students Demanding? (American Council on Education)
• The Supreme Court Could Fuel Campus Unrest in Ruling on Race in Admissions (The Chronicle of Higher Education)
• The Latest - Race on Campus: Maryland Will Rename Stadium, Art Distresses Illinois, Harvard Law Students' Demands (Inside Higher Ed)
• Supreme Court Revisits University of Texas Race-in-Admissions Case (The Wall Street Journal)
• U.S. top court revisits affirmative action in university admissions (Reuters)
• Supreme Court to hear affirmative action case (Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC)
• Supreme Court Revisits Texas Affirmative Action in New Case (Associated Press)
• Colleges Must Explain the Value of Diversity and Holistic Review in Admissions Processes (Inside Higher Ed)
• Supreme Court Preparing to Tackle Fisher Case, Campus Diversity Again (Diverse Issues in Higher Education)
• The man behind two blockbuster Supreme Court cases this week: Edward Blum (Yahoo! News)

AAAA Region III co-hosts discussion about OFCCP's policy initiatives and the Fisher v. University of Texas case

Please join the D.C. Bar Labor & Employment Section and the American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA) for an Affirmative Action Compliance update addressing both the Fisher v. University of Texas affirmative action case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court as well as comments received by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs(OFCCP) on several regulatory proposals, including Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRMs) on regulations relating to disability, compensation, veterans, and the scheduling letter.

This Off the Record Brown Bag Program is sponsored by the Labor and Employment Law Section.

Remarks made during “Off the Record” programs may not be used for publication.

Location

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Conference Room 201

Speakers

Debra Carr, Director of the OFCCP Division of Policy, Planning & Program Development

Shirley Wilcher, Executive Director of the American Association for Affirmative Action and former OFCCP Director

CLE Credit

No



This event is free of charge. Space is limited, so please RSVP to AAAA DC State Coordinator, Marilynn Schuyler via Schuyler@SchuylerAAP.com.

Three Myths About Affirmative Action

The Chronicle of Higher Education
March 29, 2012, 4:42 pm

By Richard Kahlenberg

With the nation focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s consideration of President Obama’s health-care legislation this spring, many in higher education are talking about another blockbuster case: the challenge to a racial affirmative-action program at the University of Texas, to be considered this fall. Some of the early commentary, however, is creating misconceptions about what is at stake in the Fisher v. Texas litigation. Here are three recent myths that have surfaced.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/three-myths-about-affirmative-action/32084?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

The Death of Affirmative Action, Part 1

The Chronicle of Higher Education
March 15, 2012, 9:35 am

By Michele Goodwin

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Fisher v. University of Texas, a case brought by a young woman who claims that she was discriminated against in the Texas undergraduate admissions process. Many commentators on the left and right assume that Fisher marks the death of affirmative action. Justice Kagan recused herself; she was US Solicitor General and filed a brief when the case was before the Fifth Circuit. However, few commentators consider who benefits from the platform and whether or not (and for whom) it achieves its goals. For example, some blacks think affirmative action was only about them. On the other hand white women may not recognize the entitlements they’ve gained due to affirmative action. In part, the dialogue about affirmative action misses much.

Full Story: http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-death-of-affirmative-action-part-i/44860

Affirmative Action Fight Goes on

USA Today
By Mary Beth Marklein, USA TODAY
Updated 5d 16h ago

Affirmative action in college admissions is back on the national radar as the Supreme Court is likely to hear a case involving the University of Texas this year. But a high court ruling may not settle this divisive debate.

In the nine years since the justices said public universities could consider race in admissions, four states have banned the use of race by public universities, and Oklahoma voters will decide this fall whether to join them. At least five other states don't use race, either.

Full Story: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-03-02/affirmative-action/53389292/1

Justice and Equity Are on the Line in 'Fisher v. Texas'

The Chronicle of Higher Education
March 4, 2012


By Kevin Carey

The activist judges of the United States Supreme Court, by choosing last month to take up Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, have decided to put affirmative action back on the national agenda. The fragile five-vote coalition that upheld race-based admissions policies at the University of Michigan less than a decade ago has been dispersed by retirement. Now the court's conservative majority seems poised—stare decisis be damned—to upend decades of established law and prohibit colleges from creating classes as they see fit.

Full Commentary: http://chronicle.com/article/JusticeEquity-Are-on-the/131044/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en