On March 7, 2008, a controversial court hearing addressed racial preferences in higher education. The case, set in 2013, involves the University of Kentucky using mandatory DNA testing as an important factor in determining aid from affirmative action. The actor, an African American, does not receive preference because through the test he discovers that he is a quarter European. On the opposite side, the defendant is a Caucasian woman who discovers that she is part African American and can benefit from the preference pool. This paper will address the idea of ​​using DNA testing as an entry requirement and the issues this case presents. In this case there are many hypotheses based on our technological advances. The first is that we will possess the ability to determine ethical origins through testing. Fortunately, we have reached that technological age and can request a $99 exam through sites like Ancestry or 23 And Me. However, we cannot determine the ease of access or know if it is used for commercial purposes. If the cost were around one hundred dollars per person, that would be an unnecessary amount of funds to use to identify a person's racial background. The current fraud detection method now does not require the university to spend money from the federal funds provided, and the money is reimbursed by the student upon penalty. If students were required to pay for the test to cover costs, many students would face negative consequences. Students looking to escape generational poverty already find it difficult to receive federal aid, and a requirement like this could potentially discourage those students from college. This would also be another obstacle for first-generation students… middle of paper… robustly defending the plaintiff's case. Denying too much of a huge factor in a person like culture would devalue our mission and principles. Statements like this can be recognized on all college campuses, including the University of Kentucky. It would be difficult for them to validate this argument today. My personal decision on this case would allow the plaintiff to receive affirmative action because there is no way to justify a race percentage. People from disadvantaged backgrounds are already tested by society with high expectations of failure and disappointment. Raising these expectations limits educational opportunities and prevents people from overcoming negative stereotypes. There will always be challenges due to social constructs, but we in higher education can lighten the load by getting rid of one more obstacle they need to overcome.