1.    
This
case is about whether the admissions process at a University complies with the
14th Amendment or if it is unconstitutional. This University uses
two methods to decide which students they enroll. The first method is the 10%
Rule where students who have the highest grades in their high schools will
automatically be accepted into the University. About three-quarters of the
incoming student body are enrolled utilizing this method. The second method
uses a profile of the student which considers the student’s academics and
individual performance apart from the classroom. The individual performance of
each student is scored based on the clubs, sports, and other qualities, like
race. Fisher, the plaintiff, applied to this university, but did not qualify
for automatic acceptance through the 10% Rule. She had to have the University
score her profile. Fisher claimed that being Caucasian put her at a
disadvantage because the University uses race to ensure its campus is diverse. She
claims that the University denied her acceptance because of her race. The
University’s defense is that race is an important component in the application
process when reviewing students’ profiles because it allows the admissions to
create a diverse community. The University states that having a diverse campus
will enhance the students’ education, as it allows them to learn how to work
and connect with people of different races. This case is not specifically about
race, but focuses on whether the use of race in the admissions process is
constitutional. The court Justices ruled that using race as a part of the
admissions process is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. The
only exception is that the purpose behind using race must be well defined and
used for a specific purpose or goal and used for nothing more than that purpose.

With this exception, the University’s policy regarding the admissions process
was unconstitutional.

2.    
This
is a very difficult case for me to have a strong opinion for or against a
specific side. After careful review of the case and the ruling from the
justices, I agree with the court’s decision. I believe that diversity is an
important aspect of any University because students will learn more when
surrounded by different cultures and ideologies. Race should be used in the
application process for schools, especially if it is utilized in this case to
create a diverse community. However, it is important to keep in mind that
diversity should not solely be determined by race; each person attending the
University has their individual experiences who also brings in new ways of
thinking. Due to this understanding of diversity, it is important to use race
minimally in the application process and for a specific, well-defined purpose.

Otherwise, the University would have too much of an opportunity to accept or
deny a student enrollment based only on his or her race, which is discriminatory.

Before considering race, I believe the University must look at other
characteristics of the students’ profiles. Grades, test scores, essays,
volunteer services, jobs, extracurricular events, and socioeconomic status of
the applicant are just some of the factors that should considered before race. I
believe the Justices’ ruling on this case was well-thought and logical. Using
race in the admissions process does not violate the 14th Amendment,
as long as its use is well regulated. The University in this specific case,
however, did not seem to have an explicit or clear reason behind its use of
race. Although it stated that race was used to create a diverse community on
campus, it did not have race data on the students registered using the 10%
Rule. If the campus was using race solely to foster diversity, it would be
concerned about the race of the students being admitted through the 10% Rule,
as well.

3.    
The
14th Amendment states that any citizen of the United States cannot
be deprived of any right because of their race. It protects all rights,
including the right to a proper education. Although I am an Early Childhood and
Special Education major student and this case focuses on admissions into
college, this amendment can be applied to my discipline. It is important for
teachers to provide good quality education without discrimination to all of her
students. One example which is comparable to this case is when parents apply to
a preschool for their children. Children should not be denied access to
preschool just because of their race. This issue, however, affects more than
acceptance or rejection to a school. Teachers must not treat students
differently if they are a different race. Students look up to teachers; many of
them want to grow up to be just like their teacher. If they are exposed to
discrimination of their peers, demonstrated by their teacher, they will begin
to think that student is “less than” the rest of their peers and treat them
differently. Unfortunately, I have observed this in a preschool classroom. I
have watched teachers single out a student and, as a result, her peers tried to
avoid playing with her during free time. This kind of action will have a
lasting effect on the student’s self-esteem, social skills, and comfort in
schools. It could limit or diminish the students’ future potential. It is
important, as educators, to recognize and celebrate students’ differences,
instead of making them feel inferior for them.  In my example, it would have been beneficial
for the teacher to explore, in a positive way, the many ways that each student
is different than their peer. At an early age, if students are exposed to
acceptance of diversity in others, discrimination should no longer exists
because diversity is the norm.