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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

viTABLE OF AUTHORITIES—ContinuedOTHER AUTHORITIESPage(s)Academic Freedom Committees <strong>of</strong> the<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Cape Town and <strong>University</strong><strong>of</strong> Witswatersrand, Johannesburg, TheOpen Universities in South Africa (1957reprinted in 1974) ..................................... 5J. Peter Byrne, Academic Freedom: “ASpecial Concern <strong>of</strong> the First Amendment”,99 Yale L. Rev. 251 (1989) ............ 6, 7James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time,collected in The Price <strong>of</strong> The Ticket (St.Martin’s Press 1985) ................................. 34Neal Kumar Katyal, The Promise andPrecondition <strong>of</strong> Educational Autonomy,31 Hastings Const. L. Q. 557 (2004) ........ 10Paul Horwitz, Universities as FirstAmendment Institutions: Some EasyAnswers and Hard Questions, 54U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1497 (2007) ................... 6, 7, 17W.E.B. Dubois, The Soul <strong>of</strong> Black Folks(Bedford Books 1903) ................................ 34William O. Douglas, VALUES OF FREESPEECH IN AN ALMANAC OF LIBERTY(Doubleday & Co., Inc. Garden City, NY1954) .......................................................... 4
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE 1Amici curiae are faculty members at Howard <strong>University</strong>School <strong>of</strong> Law and attorneys in the LawSchool’s Civil Rights Clinic. While Howard is <strong>of</strong>tenreferred to as one <strong>of</strong> the nation’s premier historicallyblack universities, for nearly 150 years the <strong>University</strong>’smission has actually been to provide a premiereducation to all regardless <strong>of</strong> race. Our history <strong>of</strong>integrated education has taught us that the practice<strong>of</strong> diversity is never a simple matter <strong>of</strong> just saying noto race or using one <strong>of</strong> its supposedly more palatableproxies such as socio-economic status. If achievingdiversity was such an easy thing, surely by now mosthigher education institutions would have figured outhow to do it through race-blind measures instead <strong>of</strong>inviting upon their heads the sort <strong>of</strong> constitutionalchallenges that seem to recur with remarkablefrequency no matter how clearly this Court, as it didin Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), removesconstitutional doubt from the issue. For a moderncollege and university, achieving the sort <strong>of</strong> studentbody diversity that will provide thoughtful leadershipin our technocratic, multicultural and democraticsociety requires incalculably complex judgments.Therefore, when, as is the case for the <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Texas</strong> at Austin (“UT Austin”), an institution takesrace into account as part <strong>of</strong> a good faith effort atachieving diversity, for the sake <strong>of</strong> academic1Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37, this brief is filed withthe written consent <strong>of</strong> all parties. The parties’ consent lettersare on file with the Court. This brief has not been authored,either in whole or in part, by counsel for any party, and noperson or entity, other than amicus curiae or their counsel hasmade a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission<strong>of</strong> this brief.
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: vTABLE OF AUTHORITIES—ContinuedPa
Page 11 and 12: 3academic environment. At the same
Page 13 and 14: 5also Regents of U
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?