Summary
Abigail Fisher filed a complaint because of the rejection she received when trying to apply to the University of Texas. It is important to note that the policy of admission is comprised of two integral parts. First, the top ten percent of the undergraduates are given automatic admission (Collins & Ringhand, 2013). This part of the policy is not dependent on the race factor, and almost 80% of the available spaces are filled throughout this stage. Second, the remaining spaces are filled based on six essential factors (race being one of those factors). Mostly by mistake, the “Top 10 Percent” rule was created in favor of the minority students, and the majority of them were admitted within the top-10% policy. All the other minority undergraduates were admitted during the assessment process. Fisher was not a member of the top-10% group or a representative of the minority group.
After the assessment, she ended up being rejected and was not admitted to the University of Texas. In her opinion, the problem consisted in the fact that the admission was contingent on the use of ethnicity as a factor. Fisher claimed that the use of race violated the equal protection clause indicated in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States of America (Curfman, Morrissey, & Drazen, 2013). The Supreme Court had to apply the standard of strict scrutiny. Following the admission plan, the University had to organize its admission practice based on the interests of the government and adjust it in terms of admission of those who did not belong to the top-10% of the undergraduates or did not represent a minority subgroup. Ultimately, Fisher stated that both these aspects of the admission program failed and that is why she was rejected by the University.
Key Findings and Issues
Despite being an article located in the healthcare journal, it dwells on several critical judicial issues. The key finding of the article is the fact that diversity is aggressively promoted by the government and various institutions (Curfman et al., 2013). The diversity should be sponsored, but the authors of the article also note that the current judicial and legal systems are in danger. This happens because the cases similar to Fisher’s are unique and do not represent a case where a one-sided verdict can be reached (Curfman et al., 2013). The authors also state that the issue of affirmative action and its direct connection to higher education are the two major problems that should be resolved by the Supreme Court.
Recommendations
The constitutionality of the decisions made throughout the admission process generates doubts (Curfman et al., 2013). The authors of the article recommend eliminating the notion of critical mass from the institutions (including the majority of law schools). As the authors claim, the step is necessary if the schools are keen on removing race from the number of automatic admission factors that, at long last, make up the quota (Marion & Oliver, 2012). Therefore, Curfman et al. (2013) also recommend revising the concept of critical mass to allow the institutions to find the perfect balance between the minority representatives and other students.
Criminal Justice Policy Issue Discussion Summary
The policy issue that is reviewed is inextricably connected to the integral notions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the government applies a fixed approach to the majority of such issues (Gaines, 2014). Consequently, the outcomes are naturally affected by duality and bias. These outcomes should be eliminated or mitigated in the nearest future to provide the people with true freedoms and rights instead of confronting them with an excessively aggressive promotion of racial and ethnic diversity.
The Link Between the Article and the Criminal Justice Policy Issue
The authors of the studied article dwelled on one of the key issues of the current legislation. The justice policy involving the Fourteenth Amendment has always been a stumbling block for courts all across the country. The link between the article and the issues of the existing criminal justice policy can be perceived as ineffective use of affirmative action in the education sector (Curfman et al., 2013). This leads to critical outcomes, and the opportunities for the students who do not belong to a certain socioeconomic group are rather limited.
Proper use of affirmative action would allow the university commissions to comply with the principle of the heterogeneity of the population and provide all the students with equal opportunities. Nonetheless, the constitutionality of the current decisions made by the legislative apparatuses is rather questionable (Gaines, 2014). The connection between the article and the criminal justice policy is also reflected in the society and the inability of the latter to switch to flexible admission policies. The revised guidelines may emphasize the importance of race but should also take into account the features and skills that are characteristic of outstanding and knowledgeable students.
References
Collins, P. M., & Ringhand, L. A. (2013). Supreme Court confirmation hearings and constitutional change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Curfman, G. D., Morrissey, S., & Drazen, J. M. (2013). Affirmative action in the balance. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(1), 73-74.
Gaines, L. K. (2014). Homeland security: A new criminal justice mandate. In S. L. Mallicoat & C. L. Gardiner (Eds.), Criminal justice policy (pp. 67-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. M. (2012). The public policy of crime and criminal justice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.