290 PART ThRee • InsTITuTIons of AmeRIcAn GoveRnmenT
significant loss of public support and could even lead to impeachment hearings in the
House. More commonly, presidents exercise influence over the judiciary by appointing new
judges and justices as federal judicial seats become vacant.
Executives at the state level may also refuse to implement court decisions with which
they disagree. A notable example of such a refusal occurred in Arkansas after the Supreme
Court ordered schools to desegregate “with all deliberate speed” in 1955.^20 Arkansas gov-
ernor Orval Faubus refused to cooperate with the decision and used the state’s Nationalpolitics and economics
The data prove what you might have guessed—if you
graduate from college, you have a greater chance of
earning a large lifetime income. The clear benefits of a
college education persuade many young people to bor-
row dangerously large sums in order to get a college
degree. The benefits also raise a question: Are racial
and ethnic minorities adequately represented at our
colleges and universities?aFFirmaTive aCTiON
iN COLLeGe admissiONs
Whether done formally or informally, affirmative
action awards extra “points” to members of various
racial or ethnic minorities when they seek admission
to a college. This practice has faced many challenges
over the years. Some states have outlawed it alto-
gether through a popular vote. In 2003, in Grutter v.
Bollinger, the United States Supreme Court allowed
limited consideration of race in school admissions for
purposes of diversity.aFisher v. uNiversiTY OF TeXas
The Supreme Court issued its most recent ruling on
affirmative action in 2013. The case involved Abigail
Fisher, who was rejected by the University of Texas
(UT) at Austin in 2008.b UT admitted three-quarters of
its students based on high school class rank. It admit-
ted additional students based on academic and other
factors. To promote diversity, these factors included
race and Hispanic status. Fisher did not qualify by
class rank, but her academic qualifications were betterthan some of the minority group members who were
admitted. (Indeed, by 2010 a majority of UT students
were members of a racial or ethnic minority group—
that is minority group members are a majority of the
total population of Texas.)
In her lawsuit, Fisher argued that the univer-
sity’s admissions process violated the Fourteenth
Amendment’s equal protection clause. In its ruling,
however, the Court did not completely ban the use of
race as a factor in college admissions. Rather, it sent
the case back to the appellate court and ordered that
court to review the university’s admissions practices
more strictly.PrOBLems WiTh aFFirmaTive aCTiON
Some experts have argued that affirmative action can
have negative effects. UCLA law professor Richard
Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor argue that
socioeconomic diversity is as important as racial diver-
sity. Children of wealthy black and Latino profession-
als should not be favored over low-income white and
Asian American students who are better qualified.
Sander and Taylor also argue that affirmative
action can cause students to attend the wrong schools.
Minority group members with low test scores who are
admitted to elite schools may drop out more frequently
than those who attend less prestigious institutions.
Students can experience problems when they are not
as well prepared as their classmates.FOr CriTiCaL aNaLYsis
Some argue that there should be no preferences for any group in
college admissions—including athletes and children of alumni. Do
you agree or disagree? Why?GeTTInG AheAd wITh
And wIThouT AffIRmATIve AcTIon
a. 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
b. Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. ___ (2013).- Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)—referred to as the second Brown decision.
9781285436388_12_ch12_271-296.indd 290 10/29/13 11:01 AM
Copyright 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.