On March 7, 2008, a moot court was held to discuss racial preferences in higher education. The case, which occurred in 2013, involves the University of Kentucky using mandatory DNA testing as a major factor in determining aid versus affirmative action. The plaintiff, an African-American, does not receive a preference because thanks to 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 eligible for the preference pool. This paper will discuss the idea of ​​using DNA testing as a condition of admission and the issues this case presents. There are many assumptions in this case based on our technological advancements. The first is that we will be able to possess the ability to determine ethical origins through the test. Fortunately, we have reached this technological age and can request a $99 review through sites such as Ancestry or 23 And Me. However, we cannot determine the ease of access or know if the information is used for any purpose. commercial. If the cost is around a hundred dollars per person, that would be an unnecessary amount of money being used to identify a person's racial background. The current method of fraud detection no longer requires the university to spend money due to federal funds provided and the money is returned by the student after sanction. If students had to pay to take the test to cover the cost, many students would experience negative consequences. Students trying to escape generational poverty already struggle to receive federal aid, and with such a requirement, it could potentially deter them from going to college. This would also pose another barrier for first generation students...... middle of paper ...... vigorously defend the plaintiff's argument. To deny too much an important factor of a person like culture would devalue our mission and our principles. Statements like this can be recognized on every college campus, including the University of Kentucky. It would be difficult for them to validate this argument today. My personal decision in this case would allow the plaintiff to benefit from affirmative action because there is no way to justify a race percentage. People from disadvantaged backgrounds already face a society that has 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 societal constructs, but we in higher education can ease the burden by removing one more hurdle to overcome..