FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1578344720> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1578344720 abstract "Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.2.13 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY http://cshe.berkeley.edu/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, THE FISHER CASE, AND THE SUPREME COURT: What the Justices and the Public Need to Know * February 2013 John Aubrey Douglass UC Berkeley ABSTRACT Copyright 2013 John Aubrey Douglass, all rights reserved. Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide on the contentious issue of Affirmative Action, and specifically the use of race in admissions decisions in public universities. Despite differences in the details, seasoned veterans of affirmative action debates are experiencing deja vu. In this case, Abigail Noel Fisher claims overt racial discrimination when the highly selective University of Texas at Austin (UT) rejected her freshman application in 2008. The Court’s ruling could range from upholding the legal precedent of allowing race to be one of many factors in admissions; to a more narrow decision that affirms this precedent, but rejects UT’s particular use of race in decision making, while setting new limits on such decisions; to an outright rejection of using race in any form. In this paper, I discuss the case and present a number of themes that should be considered by the Court and by the public, including problems with the notion of a “critical mass” of minority students; that arguments regarding academic merit are complex and nuanced; and that among highly selective public universities, where demand from many qualified students far exceeds the supply of admissions spots, admissions policies have arbitrary outcomes despite the best efforts to create rational and explainable admissions policies. As much as anything, the Fisher case is about the appropriate locus of admissions policy and decisions. The historical precedent, as reiterated by Justice Sandra Day O’Conner in the 2003 Grutter case, is that judgments related to the question of admissions, including the idea of sufficient critical mass of underrepresented students and factors that indicate future academic success, are, in the end, judgments that should remain with the Academy and should not be infringed without a compelling need to do so. There is no compelling need in the Fisher case. Simply agreeing to hear the case seems to indicate a willingness by the Court to overrule past precedent. Yet there is also a possibility that the Court’s decision will be influenced by the prospect that a decisive ruling against affirmative action will, for the first time, have meaning for selective private institutions, which have largely avoided scrutiny of their admissions practices and biases. As all of the justices are products of eastern elite private institutions, this could be an important consideration, although speculative. We have long recognized that, given the important purpose of public education and the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition. - Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Grutter v. Bollinger, U.S. Supreme Court, June 2003 In early October 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the opening arguments in a case that reconsiders affirmative action in America’s public universities. One possible outcome: the Court could reverse nearly four decades of legal precedent that has allowed public universities to use race and ethnicity as one among many factors when considering student admissions. Despite differences in the particular details, seasoned veterans of past affirmative action debates are experiencing “deja vu all over again.” 1 * This paper is based in part on themes in “Perils and Opportunities: Autonomy, Merit, and Privatization,” in John Aubrey Douglass, The Conditions for Admissions: Access, Equity and the Social Contract of Public Universities (Stanford University Press, 2007). See: http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=10538. While the content and opinions written here are the author’s alone, I wish to thank Richard Edelstein, David Hollinger, C. Judson King, Steven Brint, Shannon Lawrence, and Saul Gieser for their comments and corrections to earlier drafts. Slightly revised version posted on March 1, 2013." @default.
• W1578344720 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1578344720 creator A5000117678 @default.
• W1578344720 date "2013-02-01" @default.
• W1578344720 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1578344720 title "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, THE FISHER CASE, AND THE SUPREME COURT: What the Justices and the Public Need to Know" @default.
• W1578344720 cites W1967955168 @default.
• W1578344720 cites W265850285 @default.
• W1578344720 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W1578344720 type Work @default.
• W1578344720 sameAs 1578344720 @default.
• W1578344720 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1578344720 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W1578344720 hasAuthorship W1578344720A5000117678 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConcept C2777732099 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConcept C2908542518 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConcept C76509639 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConceptScore W1578344720C107993555 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConceptScore W1578344720C144024400 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConceptScore W1578344720C17744445 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConceptScore W1578344720C199539241 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConceptScore W1578344720C2777732099 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConceptScore W1578344720C2778272461 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConceptScore W1578344720C2908542518 @default.
• W1578344720 hasConceptScore W1578344720C76509639 @default.
• W1578344720 hasLocation W15783447201 @default.
• W1578344720 hasOpenAccess W1578344720 @default.
• W1578344720 hasPrimaryLocation W15783447201 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W1530119201 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W1600792093 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W1687178906 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W1953984260 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W1985129237 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W2291873859 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W233033427 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W3122457369 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W3122663712 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W3122774904 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W3122874916 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W3122931036 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W3125345424 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W3125676276 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W3125879000 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W3139892750 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W40878633 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W49215751 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W591853727 @default.
• W1578344720 hasRelatedWork W284589452 @default.
• W1578344720 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1578344720 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1578344720 magId "1578344720" @default.
• W1578344720 workType "article" @default.