Fisher v. University of Texas (on behalf of the Civil Rights Clinic)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4The race-neutral Plan remains UT Austin’sprimary admissions policy; meanwhile, the holisticreview program remains extremely narrow in scope.Nonetheless, the program continues to produce thebenefits the <strong>University</strong> envisioned: a more diverse,racially as well as otherwise, student body. This hasresulted from both the diverse students admitted viathe challenged program and students <strong>of</strong> all races andbackgrounds drawn to the <strong>University</strong> because <strong>of</strong> theperception and reality <strong>of</strong> the campus as an openacademic environment.ARGUMENTI. INSTITUTIONAL ACADEMIC AUTONOMY ISCONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED AND MUSTBE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN ASSESSINGTHE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A COLLEGE ORUNIVERSITY RACE-BASED ADMISSIONS POLICYA. Academic Autonomy, Including theFreedom to Determine Who May Studyat a <strong>University</strong>, Is a Special Concern <strong>of</strong>the First AmendmentBut the most important aspect <strong>of</strong> freedom <strong>of</strong>speech is freedom to learn . . . All educationis a continuing dialogue – questions andanswers that pursue every problem to thehorizon. That is the essence <strong>of</strong> academicfreedom . . . 2As a result <strong>of</strong> the “expansive freedoms <strong>of</strong> speechand thought associated with the university environment,universities occupy a special niche in ourconstitutional tradition.” Grutter 539 U.S at 329; see2William O. Douglas, VALUES OF FREE SPEECH IN AN ALMANACOF LIBERTY 363 (Doubleday & Co., Inc. Garden City, NY 1954).
5also Regents <strong>of</strong> Univ. <strong>of</strong> Calif. v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265,312-13 (1978) (opinion <strong>of</strong> Powell, J.) ((“[a]cademicfreedom, though not a specifically enumerated constitutionalright, long has been viewed as a specialconcern <strong>of</strong> the First Amendment.”). Academic freedom,as a constitutional concern, “stems from “[t]heessentiality <strong>of</strong> freedom in the community <strong>of</strong> AmericanUniversities” which this Court has concluded “isalmost self-evident.” Sweezy, 354 U.S. at 250; see alsoKeyishian v. Bd. <strong>of</strong> Regents <strong>of</strong> Univ. <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> N. Y.,385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967) (“[o]ur Nation is deeplycommitted to safeguarding academic freedom, whichis… a special concern <strong>of</strong> the First Amendment”).The First Amendment protects universities as theyprovide that atmosphere which is most conduciveto speculation, experiment and creation. It is anatmosphere in which there prevail ‘the fouressential freedoms’ <strong>of</strong> a university-to determinefor itself on academic grounds who may teach,what may be taught, how it shall be taught, andwho may be admitted to study.’Sweezy, 354 U.S. at 263 (citing Academic FreedomCommittees <strong>of</strong> the <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Cape Town and <strong>University</strong><strong>of</strong> Witswatersrand, Johannesburg, The OpenUniversities in South Africa 11-12 (1957 reprinted in1974).) 3Thus, “academic freedom thrives not only on3In 1957, members <strong>of</strong> the faculties <strong>of</strong> “the Universities <strong>of</strong>Cape Town and Witwatersrand declared their opposition to”apartheid’s attempt to exclude African, Asian and Colouredstudents from universities the National Party governmentreserved for white students. As those who reissued the report in1974 noted, “much <strong>of</strong> the 1957 study was devoted to an exposition<strong>of</strong> [the] aspect <strong>of</strong> [academic] freedom [that involved whoshould be admitted to study] and its importance to SouthAfrican society.” The Open Universities in South Africa at p. 1
Page 1 and 2: No. 11-345IN THESupreme Court <stro
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTSPageTABLE OF AUTHO
Page 5 and 6: iiiTABLE OF CONTENTS—ContinuedPag
Page 7 and 8: vTABLE OF AUTHORITIES—ContinuedPa
Page 9 and 10: INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE 1Amici cur
Page 11: 3academic environment. At the same
Page 15 and 16: 7First Amendment Institutions: Some
Page 17 and 18: 9B. Academic Freedom is Also Ground
Page 19 and 20: 11The deference provided in Darby f
Page 21 and 22: 13defining diversity.” (opinion <
Page 23 and 24: 15II. THE COURT’S DECISIONS AFFOR
Page 25 and 26: 17Put simply, the Court’s deferen
Page 27 and 28: 19A. The Program May Not Set Aside
Page 29 and 30: 21C. Race May not be Used Mechanica
Page 31 and 32: 23versity’s educational mission,
Page 33 and 34: 25assumption, that they represent t
Page 35 and 36: 27A. The University</strong
Page 37 and 38: 29judgment, but instead undertook a
Page 39 and 40: 31Score (PAS). The essays are score
Page 41 and 42: 33Ironically, petitioner and her am
Page 43: 35teaching this generation

Fisher v. University of Texas (on behalf of the Civil Rights Clinic)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?