Words: 1200
Affirmative action created a form of discrimination against a race that wasn’t used to being discriminated and Hoped v. Texas opened the door for the abolishment of the affirmative action policy. In 1978, the case of Bake v. Regents of the University of California ruled that “universities may consider race in admissions, to maintain diverse enrollment or to remedy past discrimination” (Lack). The verdict in the Bake case allowed The University of Texas to create a quota of different races allowed to attend the university. This policy of affirmative action in their enrolment process set the stage for the Hoped v.
Texas case. Affirmative action is defined as “various government policies that aim to increase the proportion of African-Americans, women and other minorities in jobs and educational institutions historically dominated by white men” (“affirmative action” defy. 3). “The law school’s goal was to have an entering class that would be 5 per cent black and 10 per cent Mexican American” (Hometown, 1). To be admitted to The University of Texas Law School. Applicants would have to achieve a high score on their Law School Aptitude Test and have maintained a gig grade point average.
The standard that was set, however, varied greatly between the minority group and non-minority Americans. For example a minority could receive an overall score that would grant them admission but the same score would not grant admission to a non-minority student. The scores were reviewed and applicants were put into one of three categories. They were either admitted, denied or put into a middle category called the discretionary zone. The applicants that were put into the discretionary zone were looked over by subcommittees and given a number of votes that would either allow them to be accepted or make the decision of their denial.
While this decision was easily made for non-minorities, African Americans and Mexican Americans were able to more loosely slip through the system to allow the quota to be filled. In 1992, Cheryl Hoped applied to The University of Texas Law School and was denied admission. Even though her GAP and L SAT scores were far better than many Of the minorities that were offered a place at the university, Hoped didn’t meet the standard that was set for the non-minority group.
Claiming that the policy of affirmative action refused her rights that were revived by the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment, Hoped went on to sue The University of Texas Law School. David Rogers, Douglas Caravel and Kenneth Elliott were three other white plaintiffs in the case who had also claimed to have been subjected to the same injustice. The main idea behind the Equal Protection Clause “is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race” (Hoped v. Texas, 15).
The University of Texas defense was that affirmative action ensured that there was a diverse student body at the school and eating a higher education would not be coined as a ‘white’ task to accomplish. The University also went on to explain that Hoped and her co- plaintiffs refusal to the school was not a matter of their skin color but was a matter of their fathead majors and weak undergraduate institutions” (Lack, 1). After a long trial, a verdict was finally made. In 1994, Districted Sam Sparks ruled that, to maintain diversity in universities, race can continue to be a factor used during the admissions process.
Since the university proved that Hoped, Caravel, Elliott and Rogers would have been refused acceptance in color-blind admissions system, the plaintiffs had not been affected by the affirmative action policy and therefore it was not necessary to take away the universities system of admissions. Judge Sparks allowed Hoped and the three other co-plaintiffs to re-apply to the school but the initial case did not prove that affirmative action was an unconstitutional action. About a year later, however, in August 1995, the Hoped case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (Good, 1).
The case was reviewed and after about two years from the original case date, Judge Jerry E. Smith ruled that race can no longer be the deciding factor in an applicant’s admission into a university. “Diversity of the student body was not justification, indeed, the court said, pursuit of racial diversity is irrational, like pursuit Of diverse blood types” (Holland, 182). While the actual Hoped case did not initially cause the downfall of affirmative action, it was an important first case that forced the courts to realize that affirmative action, a policy meant to stop discrimination, was actually discriminating in itself.
The second judgment wiped out the policy of affirmative action in all universities n the Fifth Circuit and Texas Attorney General Don Morale claimed that the Hoped case didn’t just eliminate this policy from The university of Texas but eliminated it from all universities in Texas as a whole (Hag, 254). Discrimination is something that has existed and will exist for as long as there is diversity within society. There are all sorts of people, from African Americans to White Americans to Mexican Americans to Asians but America as a country is supposed to have freedom and equality to everyone as a person.
Affirmative action is something of a difficult topic to either agree or agrees with because there are positive outcomes to both its existence and it being eliminated. On one hand, without affirmative action, universities and work environments may show favor toward one race or gender allowing a gap to form in who can get a job or education. But without affirmative action, especially in this case, everyone is held to the same standard and this eliminates discrimination toward anyone. So this case asks an important question: Do we, as Americans, prefer to force diversity at the risk of equality?
When I first read through this case, I wasn’t sure what side to take. I can see very valid point in Universities using affirmative action because it cancels out the idea that to have a career is only something that a white person can achieve. But at the same time, ones drive and a persons persistence in making something better of themselves has no direct correlation to what skin color that they were born Into and makes it questionable whether it should even matter at all. Whether people realize it or not, discrimination is still a problem that exists in today’s society.
As an African American, it isn’t as if I am segregated from other races, but I do face discrimination daily. How many times has the stereotype of all African Americans stealing been used? Or that all Mexican Americans are illegal immigrants? After the Hoped case and the appeal that eliminated affirmative action, an applicant who really wants to go to The University of Texas can be looked at for how intelligent they are and how hard their drive is instead of how many students share their same skin color. I agree that affirmative action is a policy that shouldn’t be used in the application process.