Write a summary paper Since 1978, the Supreme Court has endorsed the idea of race as a “plus factor” in college admissions while rejecting the idea of strict quotas or point systems.

Instructions
Affirmative Action in College Admissions

Write a summary paper Since 1978, the Supreme Court has endorsed the idea of race as a “plus factor” in college admissions while rejecting the idea of strict quotas or point systems. This approach was affirmed in a 2003 case involving the University of Michigan’s law school, but many Court-watchers believed that affirmative action would be struck down in the 2016 case Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin. Instead, Justice Kennedy sided with the liberals and upheld the practice.

UT Austin’s college admissions process has two parts. First, anyone in the top 10 percent of a Texas public high school is guaranteed admission to UT (in recent years this has been closer to the top 8 percent). Because most high schools in Texas are somewhat segregated by race, the 10 percent plan automatically creates diversity for the entering class. Second, the remaining 25 percent of in-state students are admitted by a “holistic” program that evaluates their entire record and includes race as a “plus factor.” It was this second part that Abigail Fisher challenged after being denied admission to UT. The legal question that the Court had to decide was whether the university’s affirmative action program violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and civil rights laws barring discrimination on the basis of race or could it be justified as serving a “compelling state interest” under the strict scrutiny standard.

Diversity deserves consideration.

Advocates of affirmative action argue that a diverse student body promotes viewpoint diversity that is essential to learning. Having racial diversity in the student body is likely to produce more viewpoint diversity in classroom discussions than would occur with a mostly white student body. The majority opinion in the Texas case also argued that a more diverse student body leads to “the destruction of stereotypes,” promotes “cross-racial understanding,” and prepares students “for an increasingly diverse work force and society.” Furthermore, proponents argue, the courts are not the proper place to decide these issues. Instead, as with the complex and highly charged topic of racial redistricting, the political branches of government are where these decisions should be made. The Court endorsed this position of judicial restraint in a 2014 case involving a ban on affirmative action in Michigan.

The Court argued that the Texas approach was “narrowly tailored” to serve the compelling state interest of viewpoint diversity because the 10 percent plan, by itself, did not produce the desired level of diversity and would create perverse incentives. Justice Kennedy wrote, “Percentage plans encourage parents to keep their children in low-performing segregated schools, and discourage students from taking challenging classes that might lower their grade point averages.”

Affirmative action is just another kind of discrimination.

Opponents reply that supporters of affirmative action have not provided convincing evidence that racial diversity in colleges has any beneficial effects. They also argue that “viewpoint diversity” arguments assume that members of all racial minorities think alike, drawing a comparison to racial profiling in law enforcement. It is just as offensive, they say, that an admissions committee thinks that one black student has the same views as another black student as it is that a police officer may pull over a black teenage male just because he fits a certain criminal profile.

Opponents also argue that affirmative action amounts to “reverse discrimination” and that any racial classification is harmful. Justice Alito’s scathing dissent in the Texas case said, “[] U.T. has never provided any coherent explanation for its asserted need to discriminate on the basis of race, and [] U.T.’s position relies on a series of unsupported and noxious racial assumptions.” Alito also argued that concepts such as viewpoint diversity and “cross-cultural understanding” are “slippery” and difficult to analyze systematically.

The Texas case will not be the end of the debate concerning affirmative action in higher education. A pending suit challenges Harvard University’s affirmative action program as discriminating against Asian Americans. If you had to rule on the Texas case, how would you have decided? Take a stand.

To what extent should race be used as a “plus factor” to promote racial diversity and viewpoint diversity, if at all? Is the “top 10 percent” plan a better approach?

In a minimum of 1,000 words, build your argument. Feel free to cite references to back up your ideas. You can use any citation format (e.g., MLA, APA, or Chicago), but if you choose one, use it throughout the entire essay. Of course, you also need to add reference page at the end of your essay.
BElow are the links:

https://youtu.be/cEzSva