Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Campus Strategic Action in the Fisher Case: Organizational Stakeholder Advocacy Across the Field of Higher Education

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using a census sampling, this analysis evaluates the campus structures and practices that are predictive of a campus being affiliated with stakeholder legal advocacy regarding the Fisher Supreme Court affirmative action case of 2013. Findings reveal that a campus utilizing selective admissions operated as a sufficient, but not a necessary, requirement to prompt stakeholders to take a legal position in the case. Also, campuses that enrolled and graduated the largest percentages of nonwhite students were inclined to have stakeholders submit amicus briefs advocating support for UT-Austin and the use of race in selective college admissions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These twelve campuses were: Angelina College, El Centro College, Lamar State College-Port Arthur, Lamar University, Our Lady of the Lake- San Antonio, Saint Edward’s University, Texas A&M University-Texarkana, Texas Tech University, Texas Woman’s University, Texas A&M University–San Antonio, and Trinity University.

  2. The 18 campuses included: Florida Atlantic University, Gannon University, Gonzaga University, Mississippi State University, Moravian College and Theological Seminary, Northeastern State University, Roanoke College, Saint Joseph’s University, Seward County Community College and Area Technical School, South Carolina State University, South Dakota State University, Springfield College, Stevenson University, Texas Christian University, United States Air Force Academy, University of Alabama in Huntsville, University of Kentucky, and Western Washington University.

  3. Several of the 91 Fisher briefs included education associations/organizations as lead signatories. Some of these associations and organizations allow campuses to purchase institutional memberships (e.g., National Association for College Admission Counseling), or represent stakeholder groups on particular campuses (e.g., Ohio Education Association represents faculty and staff on several campuses in that state). We did not include the campuses that hold membership or are represented by these organizations and associations in our data set. Rather, the campus affiliation had to be directly linked to a stakeholder group in the content of the brief in order to be included in our data set. We determined that campus affiliation with one of these external member or representative organizations was only tacitly implied and did not match with the campus as a unit of analysis.

References

  • Arthur, M. M. L. (2011). Student activism and curricular change in higher education. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron’s. (2003). Profile of American Colleges 2004. New York: Barron’s Educational Series Inc., College Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Christenson, D. P. (2014). The evolution and formation of amicus curiae networks. Social Networks, 36, 82–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brazleton, S. (2013). Affirmative action in higher education: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2013). The Justice System Journal, 34, 369–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickson, S. L. (2005). Organizational identity orientation, forging a link between organizational identity and organizations’ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4), 576–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brief for The Council of Minority Affairs at Texas A&M et al. as Amici curiae supporting respondents, Fisher v. University of Texas, 631 F. 3d 213. (2013).

  • Brief for The National Association of Basketball Coaches et al. as Amici curiae supporting respondents, Fisher v. University of Texas, 631 F. 3d 213. (2013).

  • Clemens, E. S. (2005). Two kinds of stuff: The current encounter of social movements and organizations. In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organization theory (pp. 351–366). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clemens, E. S., & Hughes, M. D. (2002). Recovering past protest: Historical research on social movements. In B. Klandermans & S. Staggenborg (Eds.), Methods of social movement research: Social movements, protest, and contestation (pp. 201–230). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, C. E. (1998). Lobbying for higher education: How colleges and universities influence federal policy. Vanderbilt issues in higher education. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., & Anderson, P. J. J. (2008). Social movements and failed institutionalization: Corporate (non)response to the AIDS epidemic. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Shalin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 371–388). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., McAdam, D., Scott, W. R., & Zald, M. N. (2005). Social movements and organizational theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denniston, L. (2012). Affirmative action review due next term. SCOTUS blog. Retreived February 21, 2012, from http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/affirmative-action-review-next-term/.

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dungy, G. J. (2003). Organization and function of student affairs. In S. R. Komives, J. D. B. Woodard Jr., & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed., pp. 339–357). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earl, J., Martin, A., McCarthy, J. D., & Soule, S. A. (2004). The use of newspaper data in the study of collective action. Annual Reveiw of Sociology, 30, 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher v. University of Texas, 631 F. 3d 213. (2013).

  • Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, No. 14-981, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4294 (U.S. OT 2015).

  • Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 29, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fumasoli, T., & Huisman, J. (2013). Strategic agency and system diversity: Conceptualizing institutional positioning in higher education. Minerva, 51, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garces, L. M. (2013). Reflections on a collaboration: Communicating educational research in Fisher. Educational Researcher, 42(3), 174–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garces, L. M. (2014). Aligning diversity, quality, and equity: The implications of legal and public policy developments for promoting racial diversity in graduate studies. American Journal of Education, 120, 457–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrke, S., & Kezar, A. (2015). Unbundling the faculty role in higher education. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 30, pp. 93–150). Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244. (2003).

  • Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 982. (2003).

  • Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pederson, A., & Allen, W. (1998). Enacting campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity through educational policy and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 278–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasper, J. M. (2004). A strategic approach to collective action: Looking for agency in social-movement choices. Mobilization International Journal, 9(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. C. (1983). Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 527–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. C. (1987). Nonprofit organizations and policy advocacy. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 296–318). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, J. D., & Merrill, T. W. (2000). The influence of amicus curiae briefs on the supreme court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 148, 743–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, R. (2013). For discrimination: Race, affirmative action, and the law. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, B. G. (2008). A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Business and Society, 47, 21–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, B. G., Felin, T., & Whetten, D. A. (2010). Finding the organization in organizational theory: A meta-theory of the organization as a social actor. Organization Science, 21(1), 290–305. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, B. G., & Walker, E. T. (2014). Winning hearts and minds: Field theory and the three dimensions of strategy. Strategic Organization, 12(2), 134–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, G., & Zeng, L. (2001). Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis, 9(2), 137–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, R., & Rucht, D. (2002). Protest event analysis. In B. Klandermans & S. Staggenborg (Eds.), Methods of social movement research: Social movements protest and contestation (Vol. 16, pp. 231–259). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. P. (2011). Configuration of external influence: The combined effect of institutions as stakeholders on corporate social responsibility strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 281–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, F. J., & Ancheta, A. N. (2013). The AERA et al. amicus brief in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: Scientific organizations serving society. Educational Researcher, 42, 166–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainsbridge, J. (1998). On the contested nature of the public good. In W. W. Powell & E. S. Clemens (Eds.), Private action and the public good (pp. 3–19). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, M. (2006). Law and social movements: Contemporary perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2, 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. D. (2005). Persistence and change among nationally federated social movements. In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organization theory (pp. 193–225). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1987). Resource mobilization and social movements. In M. N. Zald & J. D. McCarthy (Eds.), Social movements in an organizational society (pp. 15–47). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messer-Davidow, E. (1993). Manufacturing the attack on liberalized higher education. Social Text, 36, 40–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkoff, D. C. (2002). Macro-organizational analysis. In B. Klandermans & S. Staggenborg (Eds.), Methods of social movement research (pp. 260–285). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ness, E. C., Tandberg, D. A., & McClendon, M. K. (2015). Interest groups and state policy for higher education: New conceptual understandings and future research directions. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 30, pp. 151–186). Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, A. (2012). Organizational cognition in higher education. In M. N. Bastedo (Ed.), The organization of higher education: Managing colleges for a new era (pp. 304–334). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olivas, M. A. (2013). Making it to the supreme court Suing Alma Mater (pp. 39–49). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional responses. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265. (1978).

  • Rhoads, R. A., Saenz, V., & Carducci, R. (2005). Higher education reform as a social movement: The case of affirmative action. Review of Higher Education, 28(2), 191–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28, 204–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1991). Unpacking institutional arrangements. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 164–182). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2007). Institutions and organizations (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1957). Introduction. In P. Selznick (Ed.), Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation (pp. 1–28). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, R. W., & Vasaly, M. R. (2004). The amicus brief: How to be a good friend of the court. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southworth, A. (2005). Conservative lawyers and the contest over the meaning of “public interest law”. UCLA Law Review, 52(4), 1223–1278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southworth, A. (2012). What is public interest law? Empirical perspectives on an old question. DePaul Law Review, 62, 493–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stulberg, L. M., & Chen, A. S. (2013). The origins of race-conscious affirmative action in undergraduate admissions: A comparative analysis of institutional change in higher education. Sociology of Education, 81(1), 36–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Texas v. Hopwood, 518 U.S. 1033. (1996).

  • Thorpe, A. (2014). Applying protest event analysis to architecture and design. Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 13, 275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyke, N., Dixon, M., & Carlon, H. (2007). Manufacturing dissent: Labor revitalization, union summer and student protest. Social Forces, 86, 193–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogus, T. J., & Davis, G. F. (2005). Elite mobilizations for antitakeover legislation. In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organization theory, Cambridge studies in contentious politics (pp. 96–121). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. A., Berger, J. B., & McClendon, S. A. (2005). Making excellence inclusive. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zald, M. N., Morrill, C., & Rao, H. (2005). The impact of social movements on organizations: Environment and responses. In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organization theory, cambridge studies in contentious politics (pp. 253–2791). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zald, M. N., & Useem, B. (1987). Movement and countermovement interaction: Mobilization, tactics, and state involvement. In M. N. Zald & J. D. McCarthy (Eds.), Social movements in an organizational society (pp. 247–272). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was made possible through the generous support of the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good at the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa College of Education Research Fund. The authors extend their special thanks to Dr. John C. Burkhardt, Dr. Betty Overton, Kyle Southern, and Aurora Palacios Kamimura for their roles in supporting this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, University of Iowa, N465 Lindquist Center, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA

    Cassie L. Barnhardt, Ryan L. Young, Jessica K. E. Sheets & Carson W. Phillips

  2. University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA

    Eugene T. Parker III

  3. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA

    Kimberly Reyes

Authors
  1. Cassie L. Barnhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ryan L. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jessica K. E. Sheets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carson W. Phillips
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eugene T. Parker III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kimberly Reyes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cassie L. Barnhardt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barnhardt, C.L., Young, R.L., Sheets, J.K.E. et al. Campus Strategic Action in the Fisher Case: Organizational Stakeholder Advocacy Across the Field of Higher Education. Res High Educ 58, 313–339 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9428-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9428-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation