scholarly journals Remedying Race-Based Decision-Making: Reclaiming the Remedial Focus of Affirmative Action after Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
John V. Wintermute
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Affirmative Action ◽  
University Of Texas

scholarly journals Judicial impact on bureaucratic decision-making : the case of public procurement and contracting

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Yuan Gao
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Goal Attainment ◽  
Time Series Data ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Series Data ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Public Contracting ◽  
Judicial Impact

This study examines whether and how much the bureaucracy responds to the judiciary. Specifically, I utilize cross-sectional, time-series data to analyze the extent to which variation in bureaucratic decision-making regarding affirmative action programs in public contracting across time and U.S. states is explained by the shifting legal environment. Federal agencies are found more likely to adjust minority contract amounts in response to the executive branch. State agencies appear to be somewhat responsive to courts during affirmative action goal-setting, but not in goal attainment. Overall, I did not find enough evidence that indicates significant bureaucratic responsiveness to judicial review. The lack of judicial impact may be further understood from utilitarian, communications and organizational theoretical perspectives.

Affirmative Action for the Future

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
James P. Sterba
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Affirmative Action ◽  
The United States ◽  
University Of California ◽  
Affirmative Action Program ◽  
Educational Context ◽  
Action Program ◽  
University Of Texas ◽  
The Future ◽  
The University

Diversity instead of race-based affirmative action developed in the United States from the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision in 1978 to the present. There have been both objections to this form of affirmative action and defenses of it. Fisher v. University of Texas could decide the future of all race-based affirmative action in the United States. Yet however the Fisher case is decided, there is a form of non-race-based affirmative action that all could find to be morally preferable for the future. A diversity affirmative action program could be designed to look for students who either have experienced racial discrimination themselves or who understand well, in some other way, how racism harms people in the United States, and thus are able to authoritatively and effectively speak about it in an educational context.

From Discrimination to Affirmative Action

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas A. Powe
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Board Of Education ◽  
Action Program ◽  
Primary Case ◽  
Undergraduate Admissions ◽  
University Of Texas ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
The University

This chapter discusses the legal battles involving the University of Texas School of Law and its affirmative action program. In the wake of its success in 1944 in the all-white primary case, Smith v. Allwright, the Texas NAACP called for the integration of Texas's flagship university in Austin. Some months later Thurgood Marshall wrote a letter to Austin's only African American lawyer asking for information about how to apply to the UT School of Law. The chapter examines the Supreme Court case of Heman Marion Sweatt that produced a major stepping-stone toward Brown v. Board of Education, along with another case involving UT's undergraduate admissions that reaffirmed a state's right to implement affirmative action policies. In particular, it analyzes McLaurin v. Regents and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, along with the Texas legislature's response to Hopwood v. Texas in the form of the “10% rule.”

Democracy under Fire: Voter Confusion and Influences in Colorado's Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative

2013 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 432-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Farley ◽  
Matthew Gaertner ◽  
Michele Moses
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Direct Democracy ◽  
Voting Behavior ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Binary Logistic Regression ◽  
Ballot Initiatives ◽  
Education Policies ◽  
Binary Logistic Regression Model ◽  
University Of Texas ◽  
Previous Scholarship

In this article, Amy N. Farley, Matthew N. Gaertner, and Michele S. Moses examine the use of ballot initiatives as a particularly attractive form of direct democracy for opponents of affirmative action in higher education. Building on previous scholarship, the authors question whether anti-affirmative ballot initiatives validly reflect voters’ attitudes toward affirmative action. The authors examine the case of Colorado's Amendment 46, an anti-affirmative action ballot initiative. They investigate the language of the initiative itself, as well as voters’ perceptions of and confusion around its intent, and the factors that influenced voting behavior. They employ item response theory to estimate voters’ attitudes toward affirmative action. The authors then describe the prevalence of voter confusion around the initiative's intent. Finally, employing a binary logistic regression model, they analyze survey data to determine which factors influenced voting behavior. They find that the initiative's language was successful at confusing voters who intended to support affirmative action. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Fisher v. University of Texas and in anticipation of its decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the authors call for greater scrutiny with regard to the use of initiatives to craft education policies that have a disproportionately negative impact on members of disadvantaged populations.

Case Study 2: The Fisher Supreme Court Cases against the University of Texas at Austin

2020 ◽  
pp. 155-188
Author(s):  
J. Scott Carter ◽  
Cameron D. Lippard
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
University Of Texas ◽  
Admissions Policies ◽  
Continued Use ◽  
Color Blind ◽  
The University ◽  
The U.S

This chapter looks at the most recent case to challenge affirmative action in college admissions policies in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Fisher v. The University of Texas at Austin (2013 and 2016). Like chapter 5, the purpose of this chapter is to understand precisely what supporters and opponents are saying about the controversial policy. That is, how are they framing the debate surrounding affirmative action. However, this chapter looks at how framing may have changed over a decade later. We again focus on amicus briefs submitted by social authorities to the U.S. Supreme Court who had interests in the outcome of the cases. While we were interested in variation in types of frames used in these two cases (Fisher I and II) relative to the Gratz and Grutter cases, we mainly focused on authors continued use of both color-blind and group threat frames to state their positions. While some nuanced changes were observed from Gratz/Grutter to Fisher, our findings revealed a great deal of consistency from case to case and that the briefs continued to rely on color-blind and threat frames to characterize the policy. Particularly among opponents’ briefs, threat frames suggested that whites, in general, were losing in a country consumed by liberal agendas of diversification and entitlements only afforded to unqualified and ill-prepared non-whites.

scholarly journals IMPLEMENTATION OF LAW NUMBER 6 OF 2014 ON VILLAGES RELATED TO THE POLITICAL PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN IN VILLAGE REGULATION IN INDONESIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Ani Purwanti ◽  
Fajar Ahmad Setiawan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Political Participation ◽  
Gender Equality ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Quota System ◽  
Representation Of Women ◽  
Parliamentary System ◽  
And Gender ◽  
The Village

<em>This article explores the affirmative action related to women's political participation in the village's decision-making process that results in village regulations.</em> <em>This article uses a law-based approach, it will also demonstrate the contrasting implications between affirmative action on the village legislative system and the regional parliamentary system (city, province, and state). The decision-making process in the village differs from the conventional Parliament, where the implications of the affirmative action of village law differ from the parliamentary system. This is due to the existence of the village deliberation where a group of women is mandated to be directly involved in direct deliberation. This feature facilitates bottom-up politics for gender equality and advocacy of women's rights in decision-making where female and group representatives can work shoulder-to-shoulder and safeguard one another on the agenda of Women's empowerment and gender equality. This is a unique advantage that does not exist in parliamentary politics because the quota system does not guarantee the representation of women ideologically in line with the interests of women they represent.</em>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document