Case Analysis: Pryor V. Ncaa, 288 F.3d 548 (3d Cir. 2002)

In mid-1999, a student by the name of B.J. Durham transferred schools as a result of his mother’s divorce and financial struggles. B.J. was a cross-country/track star at his previous school, Park Tudor Private High School, and was rumored to be moving for athletically-motivated reasons. Because of the hearsay, B.J. was not granted full-eligibility by the IHSAA but partial. B.J., the plaintiff in this case, was also denied access to the Hardship Exception which would’ve granted him athletic eligibility in full. B.J. and his family took their case to court. The court issued a permanent injunction against the IHSAA’s decision, to which the IHSAA later appealed. The court stood on their decision,

Sixty-two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled the “separate but equal” doctrine unconstitutional. The decision from the Plessy v. Ferguson case was lawfully denounced by the Brown v. Board of Education. The Brown case, which was initiated by the members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), served as a stimulus for challenging segregation in all areas of society, especially in public educational institutions. Among the support for the desegregation in school systems, there was a young yet compelling voice who was heard by numerous ears in the rural city in Farmville, Alabama. The virtuous and determined Barbara Johns, who was only a high school student then led her tiny, hovel-like school’s student body and the Farmville community to file a lawsuit in the hope of terminating the inequality in regards to the educational system.

There is one case that intrigues me, and confusing to me as well, Tompkins v. Alabama State University (AS) (1995). In the case of T v. AS, AS was told by a federal judge that the university needed to spend more state funds for scholarships to attract white students, the university was primarily black. The judge required the university to become more diversified. Jessie Tompkins along with others filed a lawsuit against the university and its white scholarship. In 2000 AS changed the name of the scholarship, making it racially inclusive. Tompkins denied the settlement because AS could still discriminate (Legislatures, June 2016). My confusion is, most want even opportunities for everyone, but AS had to change the program so it could no longer

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

A benign discrimination may be justified where the distinction is used for remedial purposes of desegregation. The statute is crafted to ban the exclusion of other racial groups and afford them the membership eligibility. This would serve its remedial purpose of abolishing pre-existing discrimination. In addition, it has been established historically that white males represent the class that is socially most advantaged: They do not belong to a discrete insular minority; thus, the impact of the statute cannot be said to have been placed on a minority group. As the court held in Hunter, where the discriminatory law’s impact falls on minority, it will be under strict scrutiny and “the majority needs no protection against discrimination.” Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385

There have been many cases before the United States Supreme Court similar to Mary Hamilton’s, including one that is currently pending. In an ongoing case, Fisher v. University of Texas (2012), Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian female, filed a lawsuit against the University because she was denied admission. Fisher argued that the University was discriminating in its selections based on race. The University argued that the factor of race in the admissions process was solely in the interest of promoting educational diversity. If the admissions of a school call for measures to be taken to ensure diversity, then the policies in place must be reviewed under a standard of strict scrutiny to determine if they are precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest (oyez.org). In Fisher v. University of Texas, the examination of strict scrutiny was not sufficiently conducted and is going to be argued once more on December 9, 2015. In this situation, using the factor of race in an admissions process is

In 2010, the University of North Carolina (the “University”) launched an investigation into the department of African and Afro-American (AFAM) studies, in which several athletes were given special treatment in “paper classes” (Hartlyn and Andrews 1). In July of 2011, a student athlete, Michael McAdoo, filed a lawsuit against the University and the NCAA due to his ineligibility to play football. In the complaint, the student attached a paper for his Swahili 403 course in which evidence of plagiarism was found (“Evidence of Academic”). In addition, some players had been receiving grades in classes that did not exist in the AFAM department (Lyall). This fraudulent activity attracted media attention to the University and Karen Gil, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, launched an investigation to analyze the previous academic years ranging from 2007 to 2011 (“Evidence of Academic”). The findings from the review committee included unauthorized grade changes, forged faculty signatures on grade rolls and limited to no class time (the “Crisis”).

According to Regents of the University of California Blake, “It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy.” In other words, race interfered with whether or not you got an education. Amendment 14 states, “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” This proves that race deciding whether or not you get into a college is unconstitutional because any person has the liberty of getting a good education. Skin color or race shouldn’t be the key to your success. Life is about succeeding and where you come from should not decide whether or not you get an education. The court can’t just deprive someone of their education just because the color of their skin isn’t the same as the color of higher class

According to the 14th Amendment, The Equal Protection Clause forbids any state from making a law that infringes upon a person’s right (cite the Constitution). In other words, laws must treat a person as equally as others in similar situations. The Supreme Court discovered that the case hadn’t gone through the “strict scrutiny” test, so it was sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for further review. The Court of Appeals determined in a 2-1 verdict that the university was justified in its use of affirmative action (Affirmative Action Timeline). In the aftermath of the case, universities and medical schools now face complications justifying their affirmative action plans. While many people oppose affirmative action policies, there are experts who defend the

Davis, the student, who suffered from a severe hearing disability, applied to the nursing program at a local community college. The admissions committee denied her application after determining that, because of her disability, she would not be able to participate in their nursing program safely. As a result, the student filed a Section 504 complaint against the institution, arguing the school had discriminated against her because of her hearing disability. The court found that the institution’s academic policies were reasonable and appropriate. Moreover, they stated Section 504 did not require an institution or program to lower its admissions criteria or remove physical qualifications to accommodate individuals with disabilities. While an individual may be otherwise qualified, if she or he does not have the physical capability to perform the required tasks of the program, the institution is under no obligation to admit the

The newspaper article appears to be a news report about the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action on the Fisher v. University of Texas case. The purpose of this text is to inform readers about the decision and the view point of officials who agree and disagree with affirmative action, as well of those who are in between and those who don’t think we are close to solving this issue. The author, Adam Liptak, focuses on writing about the United States Supreme Court, and is graduate from Yale; He has even taught courses on the Supreme Court and the First Amendment at several law schools, including, Yale. In a nutshell, Liptak is an expert when dealing with Supreme Court cases. The audience of this article are those supporters and adversaries of affirmative action who wish to be informed of what is going on. The text was published by The New York Times and one should know prior people involved with past cases as they are listed in the article. While it is recommended that one knows names of people involved with this or prior case(s), like that of Abigail Fisher and Justice Kennedy, it is not necessary as the text gives a brief description for those who don’t know. The text was published in 2016, since it’s from this year, it is a great resource since it is up to date with the latest Supreme Court Case dealing with affirmative action.

In the present case, Park City University has failed to show history and continuing practice of expanding opportunities for women athletes. Unlike Cohen, Part City University cannot establish that it has a great history of program expansion for the underrepresented sex. In Cohen, the court found that Brown had a history of expansion because it implemented 14 women’s programs between 1971 and 1977, followed by their last program expansion in 1982. In contrast, in the present case Park City University implemented just seven women’s teams between 1970 and 1990 followed by their last expansion in 2003. In comparison to Cohen, Park City University added just half number of teams in almost twenty years of the time period. Additionally, applying the court’s reasoning of Cohen in the present case, Park City University failed to continue to expand its program in response to the interests and abilities of women, since it did not make efforts to increase opportunity for women athletes for the time period of 22 years. If Park City University had added women's teams between 1990 and 2003, and then refused to establish women's golf team, the court would find Park City University in compliance with the continuing practice of program expansion requirement. Since, it is apparent that Park City University had failed to provide a history and continuing practice of program expansion for females, it did not satisfy the prong two tests under Title IX three-part test.

However, affirmative action policies raise up questions about whether they are constitutional or not. The programs may even conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. Furthermore, recently, some people debate that certain school’s admissions have deliberated race as an advantaged factor for accepting applicants. These actions are obviously unconstitutional (Clarkson, Miller, and Cross 697). To go over the context of the book and cover more on affirmative action, this paper will talk further about the background on affirmative action, affirmative action’s coverage on different fields, cases law, and the possible “outcomes” of the affirmative

For every college a student applies to they are asked to state personal characteristics like their gender, religion, and race. In a way, asking these students to specify their race on their applications allows the University an opportunity to discriminate. Universities across the nation deny they have quotas, and instead they say they have targeted goals in order to make a more diverse student body. Recently a 2016 case, Fisher vs. University of Texas, was reviewed by the Supreme Court. This particular case challenged the University’s Top Ten 10 Percent program that guarantees that top students in every high school within the state admission, although every year the cutoff usually varies (Liptak, 2016). The case also challenged the fact that the University of Texas and many other schools consider standards “that take into account academic achievement and other factors, including race and ethnicity” (Liptak, 2016). The Supreme Court’s ruling was a setback with 4 to 3 vote that “rejected a challenge to a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin…” (Liptak, 2016). However, in essence the Supreme Court’s decision to allow schools to use race as a deciding factor when students apply for colleges is inherently racist and it completely goes against what affirmative action truly stands. The ruling also defended the

In Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, (476 U.S. 293)(1981) the Supreme Court took into account the harmful effects suffered by whites from government policies designed to serve the permissible purpose of redressing the continuing effects of past racial discrimination are constitutionally significant inequities that can be justified only by "compelling" state interests. (Chang 1)