Education Law Commons^™

Embracing Race-Conscious College Admissions Programs: How Fisher V. University Of Texas At Austin Redefines "Affirmative Action" As A Holistic Approach To Admissions That Ensures Equal, Not Preferential, Treatment, Nancy L. Zisk

Nancy L. Zisk

In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the United States Supreme Court affirmed well-established Supreme Court doctrine that race may be considered when a college or university decides whom to admit and whom to reject, as long as the consideration of race is part of a narrowly tailored holistic consideration of an applicant's many distinguishing features. The Court's latest decision heralds a new way of thinking about holistic race-conscious admissions programs. Rather than considering them as "affirmative action" plans that prefer any one applicant to the disadvantage of another, they should be viewed as the Court has described …

Racial Indirection, Yuvraj Joshi

Yuvraj Joshi

How Much Diversity Can The Us Constitution Stand?, Tanya Washington

Tanya Monique Washington

No abstract provided.

Fisher V. Texas: The Limits Of Exhaustion And The Future Of Race-Conscious University Admissions, John Powell, Stephen Menendian

john a. powell

This Article investigates the potential ramifications of Fisher v. Texas and the future of race-conscious university admissions. Although one cannot predict the ultimate significance of the Fisher decision, its brief and pregnant statements of law portends an increasingly perilous course for traditional affirmative action programs. Part I explores the opinions filed in Fisher, with a particular emphasis on Justice Kennedy’s opinion on behalf of the Court. We focus on the ways in which the Fisher decision departs from precedent, proscribes new limits on the use of race in university admissions, and tightens requirements for narrow tailoring. Part II investigates the …

An Empirical And Constitutional Analysis Of Racial Ceilings And Public Schools, Michael Heise

Michael Heise

No abstract provided.

Judicial Decision-Making, Social Science Evidence, And Equal Educational Opportunity: Uneasy Relations And Uncertain Futures, Michael Heise

Michael Heise

No abstract provided.

Assessing The Efficacy Of School Desegregation, Michael Heise

Michael Heise

No abstract provided.

Are Single-Sex Schools Inherently Unequal?, Michael Heise

Michael Heise

No abstract provided.

School Discipline 101: Students' Due Process Rights In Expulsion Hearings, Melissa Frydman, Shani M. King

Shani M. King

Upholding the principle that school districts, as state actors, shall not deprive a student of liberty or property without due process of law, courts have expanded for more than four decades the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protection of public school students. Understanding this principle is essential to representing children in school discipline proceedings. Before presenting a practical guide to representing students in these proceedings, we offer a brief history of due process protection for children.

Punitive Injunctions, Nirej S. Sekhon

Nirej Sekhon

No abstract provided.

Article: No Child Left Behind: Why Race-Based Achievement Goals Violate The Equal Protection Clause, Ayriel Bland

Ayriel Bland

In 2002, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was passed under President George W. Bush with the goal of increasing academic proficiency for all children in the United States by 2014. Yet, many states struggled to meet this goal and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education allowed states to apply for waivers and bypass the 2014 deadline. Some states implemented waivers though race-based achievement standards. For example, Florida in October 2012, established that by 2018, 74 percent of African American and 81 percent of Hispanic students had to be proficient in math and reading, in comparison to 88 percent …

From Plyler To Arizona: Have The Courts Forgotten About Corfield V. Coryell?, John Eastman

John C. Eastman

The U.S. Constitution assigns plenary authority to determination naturalization policy to the Congress. Yet increasingly the Courts have undermined Congress's policy judgments with invented constitutional rights. This article explores how the Courts have enhanced the three principal magnets to illegal immigration and thereby undermined congressional policy: employment; education and other social services; and citizenship itself.

The Newest Jim Crow And The Incarceration Of Black Males, Edward Earl Bell

Dr. Edward E. Bell

Black males are in jail. Are "we" to blame? The New Jim Crow is alive.

Revisiting Gay Rights Coalition Of Georgetown Law Center V. Georgetown University A Decade Later: Free Exercise Challenges And The Nondiscrimination Laws Protecting Homosexuals, Matthew J. Parlow

Matthew Parlow