University of the District of Columbia Law Review


On June 29th, 2015, the Supreme Court agreed to once again hear oral arguments in Fisher. This decision is troubling to supporters of Affirmative Action policies because of the Court's indistinguishable motivation for hearing the case a second time. This Note argues that theCourt must continue to allow race-based considerations in higher education admissions policies. Part I takes a look at the beginnings of affirmative action and the effects of past discrimination on the educational attainment of minorities. Part II charts the case law related to affirmative action in higher education. Part III tracks how the meaning of narrowly-tailored has evolved through the relevant case law. Part IV explores the individual, educational and societal benefits of achieving true diversity in higher education and asserts that these benefits are paramount, especially as our society becomes increasingly heterogeneous. The Note concludes by maintaining that in order to have meaningful minority representation in all areas of society, it is essential that within the context of higher education admissions, the Court's definition of narrowly-tailored must continue to include certain race-based considerations. Specifically, considering race as a factor, among many, in making an offer of admission must again be deemed constitutionally permissible.

First Page