Posted: August 13th, 2022

Case 1: Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F.3d 147

Case Briefs
Name
Institution

Case 1: Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F.3d 147
Citation: (Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F.3d 147-Appeals Court)
Facts:
The plaintiff, Daniel Podberesky, a Hispanic male, had applied for a Banneker Scholarship program provided at the University of Maryland College Park (UMCP) having attained a superior grade point average in high school. The program is only awarded to eligible students of African-American descent. The University also has another scholarship program known as the Francis Scott Key Program that is based on merit, and is not limited to students of Black-American origin (Spann, 2000). Since Podberesky was of Hispanic descent, he was not eligible to compete for the Banneker Scholarship even though he met all other academic requirements needed for consideration. This prompted him to bring a lawsuit against the University claiming that the scholarship infringed the Equal Protection Clause. He thus sought injunctive and compensatory relief. In its defense, the University affirmed that the nature of the program was remedial, compensating for the current impacts of a long history of prejudice against Black-Americans (Spann, 2000). In this regard, the district court ruled in favor of the defendant by granting it summary judgment. When the plaintiff appealed the judgment, the case was sent back to the lower court by the Appeals Court. This Court ordered the lower court to establish whether the current effects of past prejudice against Black-Americans at the institution warranted the program. The lower court ruled that the program was warranted.
Issues:
• Did the district court make an error in ruling that the defendant had adequate proof of current impacts of past prejudice to warrant the program and in ruling that the program is intently designed to accomplish its stipulated goals?
• Did the University violate the Equal Protection Clause by preserving a scholarship program only for students of Black-American descent?
Holding and Reasoning/Rationale:
Yes. The district court made a mistake in judging that the defendant had adequate proof of current impacts of past prejudice to warrant the program and in ruling that the program is intently designed to accomplish its stipulated goals. For this reason, the Appeals court overturned the ruling of the lower court to award summary of judgment to the defendant and remanded for judgment entry in the plaintiff’s favor. As such, this Court also ruled that the defendant infringed the Equal Protection Clause by retaining the scholarship program only for Black-American students (Spann, 2000). Furthermore, the court ordered the district court to instruct the defendant to consider the plaintiff for the scholarship program and commanded the defendant not to put into effect the racial qualification. The reasoning of this Court was based on the heightened level of judicial scrutiny. According to the Court, the party that seeks to enforce the race based program must, at least, prove that the impact it provides is as a result of past prejudice and that the impact is of adequate scale to warrant the program (Spann, 2000). The court further stated that plain knowledge of a past fact is not adequate to warrant such a program.
Ramifications for Higher Education:
The decision of this case has significant ramifications for higher education. It is a call for universities and colleges to consider whether to stand by their race-conscious admissions programs. Also, students are called to consider whether these programs are worthy for them. The decision also calls employees, parents and student leaders to assess the history of past discriminations and determine whether they warrant these programs. The results of such evaluations should inform their decisions on promoting these programs or calling for their abolishment altogether.
Case 2: Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S.
Citation: (Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S.-US Supreme Court)
Facts:
The plaintiff, Abigail Fisher, a white female, made an application to join the University of Texas, but her application was declined. According to the University, Fisher did not meet the qualifications for the Texas’ Top Ten Percent Plan, a plan that assures entrance to any students that graduate from a high school in Texas and are among the top 10 percent of their class (Kahlenberg, 2014). The remaining spots are then filled by considering multiple factors, encompassing race. The University denied admitting Fisher since she was not among the top 10 percent. This prompted her to instigate a lawsuit against the University claiming that the utilization of race as a factor in their admissions infringed the Equal Protection Clause (Kahlenberg, 2014). According to her, by factoring race in its overall-evaluation process, the institution served to disadvantage her and other candidates of Caucasian origin. The decision of the district court favored the University and it cited that its process of admissions was constitutional. When the plaintiff appealed this decision, the Court of Appealed affirmed. The case was later appealed to the U.S Supreme Court.
Issues:
Does the utilization of an admissions policy that puts race into consideration as part of a holistic-evaluation process contravene the Equal Protection Clause?
Holding and Reasoning/Rationale:
No. By utilizing race as an aspect in the process of admissions did not breach the Equal Protection Clause in any way. According to the Court, the utilization of race by the institution as a facet in the holistic evaluation utilized to fill the openings that remained after the Top Ten Percent Plan was intentionally created to meet a compelling interest of the state (Kahlenberg, 2014). Earlier examples had ascertained that educational diversity is a compelling interest in as much as it is used as a solid and clear-cut goal that is neither a quota of students from the minority nor a vague ideology of diversity. Therefore, enrolling a body of students that is diverse serves to promote cross-racial understanding, assisting to eliminate stereotypes associated with race, and allows students to better comprehend individuals of dissimilar races. Equally vital, student bodies that are diverse seek to enhance outcomes of learning, and better prepare students for a progressively varied society and labor force. Increasing the enrollment of minority groups may be instrumental to these educational advantages, but it is not an objective that can or should be decreased to pure numbers (Kahlenberg, 2014).
Ramifications for Higher Education:
The case has significant ramifications for students, parents, employees, and school leaders. For instance, the case would encourage students to apply to be admitted to colleges and universities that promote ethnic diversity. Parents are also called to be at the forefront in helping their children understand the importance of diversity as well as encourage them to appreciate it. The decision of the case is also a call to action for school leaders to contribute to generating thorough and captivating work communicating and debating-from different disciplines and viewpoints-the advantages of race-conscious positive action in higher education. Employees in these institutions are challenged take an active role in examining the fairness of their admissions programs; to evaluate whether shifting demographics have diluted the need for a policy that considers race and to establish the impacts, both negative and positive, of the affirmative action strategies their institutions deem necessary.

References
Kahlenberg, R. D. (2014). The future of affirmative action: New paths to higher education diversity after Fisher v. University of Texas. Century Foundation.
Spann, G. A. (2000). The law of affirmative action: Twenty-five years of Supreme Court decisions on race and remedies. NYU Press.

Check Price Discount

Study Notes, Research Topics & Assignment Examples: Write a paper comparing and contrasting Pharmacology »Paraphilia is a psychiatric disorder that is characterized by sexual arousal to unusual