Thus the brief concluded that the Supreme Court has permitted institutions to take race into account as a consideration in the admissions decision, and it should continue to do so. Year of Decision: 2016. of Tex. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013)(Fisher I). Alexander Meiklejohn Award for Academic Freedom, Ralph S. Brown Award for Shared Governance, Forming a Section for Delegate Representation, Academic Freedom and Institutional Matters, Guidance for Campus Operation During the Pandemic, Faculty Handbook Policies, Budget Committees, and Budget Principles, Accounting Guidelines for Analysis of Financial Exigency, Resources on Copyright, Distance Education, and Intellectual Property, Academic Freedom and Tenure Investigations, Standing Committee and Subcommittee Reports, Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Due Process, Distance Education and Intellectual Property, Professionalization as the Basis for Academic Freedom and Faculty Governance, The AAUP, Academic Freedom, and the Cold War, The Eroding Foundations of Academic Freedom and Professional Integrity, Ward Churchill at the Dalton Trumbo Fountain, The Demise of Shared Governance at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Hidden (and Not-So-Hidden) New Threats to Faculty Governance, Academic Freedom and the Digital Revolution, Rethinking Academic Traditions for Twenty-First-Century Faculty, Institutionalized Attacks on Academic Freedom, The Corporatization of American Higher Education, John Ervin Kirkpatrick and the Rulers of American Colleges. ������#� ,�le

One example is the “academic mismatch” theory, which hypothesizes that relatively lower graduation rates among minority students admitted under race-conscious admissions programs result from an academic curriculum too rigorous for such students.

Advancing psychology to benefit society and improve lives. June 24, 2016 Getty Images. Case summary for Fisher v. University of Texas: Fisher, a Caucasian woman, was denied admission into the University of Texas and challenged their admission procedures which included the consideration of an applicant’s race. FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN et al. In its second consideration of Fisher’s challenge to UT’s program, the Court confirmed that universities must prove that race is considered only as necessary to meet the permissible goals of affirmative action. In 2016, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the UT Austin’s affirmative action program in Fisher II. In August 2012, the AAUP signed onto an amicus brief authored by ACE with 37 other higher education groups. As a result, the only merits question remaining in this case is whether the University of Texas’s admissions practice is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest “in the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” Fisher I, 133 S. Ct. at 2417. Sr|���!F�} I���+��]��o�ǤNkG�iXW,�uM����+���~�8t���FZ���5��K-� O���y����I��A�Z��q�t����������\����f�>�3G.?88�ee�!��߶t�������4����i�����_�Ȇ�7���lQ%�Xё:~N�Q������NV@�V\�3����!N) ֘����wRa|t�o٘�Q̮���Sg���c�%�@��.

In continuing this tradition, the AAUP joined the amicus brief in Fisher II, authored by ACE and joined by 37 other higher education organizations. University of Texas Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - December 09, 2015 in Fisher v. University of Texas Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 23, 2016 in Fisher v. University of Texas John G. Roberts, Jr.: Justice Kennedy has our opinion this morning in case 14-981, Fisher versus the University of Texas. 2 .

In November 2013, the AAUP again signed onto ACE’s amicus brief to the Fifth Circuit, which reiterated the arguments enumerated above. The Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of UT Austin and the Fifth Circuit’s first decision was appealed to the Supreme Court in 2012. In that appeal, the question presented was whether the Supreme Court's decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter, permitted UT Austin's use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions. The social isolation and stereotyping experienced by underrepresented minorities inhibits those students’ mental and emotional functioning, which leads to decreased academic performance and impaired emotional well-being.

In 2013, the Court reaffirmed the principle that public universities have a compelling interest in a diverse student body but sent the case back to the court of appeals to determine whether UT’s admissions policy is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.
APA’s brief provided research supporting the position that underrepresentation of minority groups poses significant obstacles to effective education of both minority and nonminority students. 1 . certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit. No. The Court also emphasizes that universities have “a continuing obligation” to “engage[] in periodic reassessment of the constitutionality, and efficacy, of [their] admissions program[s].” While this requires ongoing study and evaluation by universities, the Court’s decision creates a significant and positive basis for universities to adopt affirmative action programs that meet constitutional requirements.
The Court held that the University of Texas' use of race as a factor in the holistic review used to fill the spots remaining after the Top Ten Percent Plan was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

Fisher petitioned to have the Supreme Court review the case (again) and that request was granted on June 29, 2015.

As this Court long has recognized, diversity in higher education enhances the educational experience for all students.

hޔ���0C�� ��\J��#KU�!�JT������SFD�؊�';�*�Y�bL��%c$�M$�FM㶷��9ߺ��4r�S�P1���������u�y���K�� In addition, AAUP policy has long supported the value of diversity in education.

Nearly all of these studies have been conducted or published since the Court’s decision in Grutter in 2003, in which APA also filed a brief presenting the research that was current at that time. Argued December 9, 2015—Decided June 23, 2016. This opinion now enables universities to adopt affirmative action programs that meet constitutional requirements. Despite this, the Court’s decision does provide important guidance to universities concerning the criteria that will be applied in evaluating affirmative action programs. 14–981. In 2016, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the UT Austin’s affirmative action program in Fisher II.

The Court noted that the “prospective guidance” of its decision is limited to some extent by the particularities of the UT case.

However, these benefits accrue only when a critical mass of different minority groups is present on campus. As early as 1978, the AAUP filed an amicus brief in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke to protect the primacy of the faculty role in developing educationally appropriate admissions criteria. In Grutter and Fisher I, the Supreme Court made clear that when an institution sets its educational goals—including a goal of attaining the educational benefit of a diverse student body—it makes an educational judgment that merits judicial regard. In this case, the Court determined that the University of Texas sufficiently expressed a series of concrete goals along with a reasoned explanation for its decision to pursue these goals along with a thoughtful consideration of why previous attempts to achieve the goals had not been successful.

August 2016 College Board’s Access and Diversity Collaborative.

Fisher claimed that either this use of race did not fall into the constitutional parameters of Grutter or that Grutter must be overturned. The Court’s decision recognizes that judges should give due deference to universities in defining educational goals that include the benefits of increasing diversity in the student body, such as the promotion of cross-racial understanding and the preparation of students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society.

The brief argued that the educational benefits that come from a diverse student body are a compelling state interest and second, colleges and universities must be allowed to make autonomous decisions when determining the composition of their student bodies. The Court applied the three key criteria from its earlier decision in this case (Fisher I): (1) a university must show that it has a substantial purpose or interest in considering race as a factor in its admissions policy and that considering race is necessary to achieve this purpose; (2) courts should defer, though not completely, to a university’s academic judgment that there are educational benefits that flow from diversity in the student body; and (3) the university must prove that race-neutral alternatives will not achieve its goals of increasing diversity. Narrow tailoring should not be interpreted to forbid race-conscious holistic review simply because the review operates concurrently with race-neutral mechanisms. In July 2014, for the second time, the Fifth Circuit upheld the UT Austin admissions plan.

The University of Texas' plan is also narrowly tailored to serve this compelling interest because there are no other available and workable alternatives for doing so. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the court below had not properly applied the “strict scrutiny” standard and remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit.