Running head : Hopwood v . TexasHopwood v . State of Texas (861 F . Supp .551 ,578Student s Name prepareProfessor s NameCourseHopwood v . State of Texas (861 F . Supp .551 ,578FactsIn 1992 , Cheryl Hopwood , Kenneth Elliot , and David Rogers applied for rise to power in Texas Law School but were denied for not meeting show lessons s policy . As a rail policy , totally appliers s leave behind be reviewed and categorized into likely meet , discretionary govern , and presumptive deny . The admission testament be based on the Texas Index (TI , undergrad desexualise up point average (GPA ) and Law School Aptitude visitation (LSAT ) and other circumstances or context of the applicant (861 F . Supp .551 ,578 . The requirement for presumptive prevail among nonminority is TI score of 199 (861 F . Supp .551 ,578 . Moreover , all(prenominal) categories undergoes a review out front committees . This program was used purposely to establish a school of form by giving chance to minority students . It is also to flesh a hostile- free milieu for students and to alleviate the silly character of the schoolHopwood garnered a TI of 199 , LSAT of 39 , and GPA of 3 .8 patch Elliot and Rogers had a TI score of 197 (861 F . Supp .551 ,578 . that check to the policy , nonminorities in the discretionary zone were reviewed extensively . The applications of the nonminorities in the discretionary zone were separated into tierce groups of thirty and each of the thirty applicants leave behind be independently reviewed and scrutinized by the three committee members (861 F . Supp .551 ,578 . The applicants will be deemed admitted if they consume at least two dependable to right to votes up to now , if an applicant receives one vote , he will be dropped to the waiting list , temporary hookup a no vote at al l would taut complete denial of applicatio! n .
Hopwood , who was supposed to be in the presumptive admit was dropped to discretionary zone because of the noncompetitiveness of her college and undergraduate schools (861 F . Supp .551 ,578 . On the discretionary zone , she received only vote because she was believed to bring transition in school as a result of macrocosm old and raising a disable child . and then , she was dropped to waiting list . Elliot and Rogers , who were also on discretionary zone , received no vote and were whole denied . The three sought-after(a) the intervention of the court for allege encroachment of their constitutional right to equal protection of rectitudeIssueIs the policy of the law school in using race as a factor in admitting applicants constitutionalHoldingThe soil court held the policy or program as lawful . On appeal the chat up of Appeals reversed , affirmed , and remanded in part the decision of the district courtReasonThe tourist court of Appeals held that the school can not use racial preferences as a factor on determining the admissability of the applicant (861 F . Supp .551 ,578 . The said policy is not a stop up to diversity as intended by the school . It will not also repair the perceived hostile milieu of the law school...If you want to get a full essay, set out it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com
If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper