Regents of california vs bakke. Bakke v. Regents of University of California 2022-12-29
Regents of california vs bakke
Rating:
5,8/10
530
reviews
Regents of California v. Bakke, also known as Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1978. The case involved Allan Bakke, a white man who had been denied admission to the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, despite having higher grades and test scores than some of the minority students who were admitted under the university's affirmative action program.
Bakke argued that the affirmative action program, which reserved a certain number of spots in the medical school for minority students, was discriminatory against him and violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The university argued that the program was necessary to increase diversity and address the historic discrimination faced by minority groups in the United States.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Bakke, finding that the university's affirmative action program was unconstitutional. The Court held that while diversity in education was a compelling interest, the use of racial quotas was not a permissible means of achieving it. However, the Court also held that race could be considered as a factor in admissions decisions, as long as it was not the sole or decisive factor.
The decision in Bakke v. Regents of California had a significant impact on affirmative action programs in the United States. It established that race could be considered as a factor in admissions decisions, but it also placed limits on the use of racial quotas. The case also sparked a national debate on the role of affirmative action in American society and the extent to which it is necessary to promote diversity and address past discrimination.
In the decades since the Bakke decision, affirmative action has continued to be a controversial and divisive issue. While some argue that it is necessary to promote diversity and correct past wrongs, others argue that it is unfair and results in reverse discrimination against individuals who do not belong to minority groups. The debate over affirmative action continues to this day, and it is likely to remain a controversial and significant issue in the United States for years to come.
Regents of the University of California vs Bakke Flashcards
Once validated, however, the qualifications and tests are entirely proper, regardless of their disparate impact on racial groups. Representative Lindsay, also a member of the Judiciary Committee, candidly acknowledged, in the course of explaining why Title VI was necessary, that it did not create any new standard of equal treatment beyond that contained in the Constitution: "Both the Federal Government and the States are under constitutional mandates not to discriminate. It is not even claimed that Davis' program in any way operates to stigmatize or single out any discrete and insular, or even any identifiable, nonminority group. For purposes of constitutional adjudication, there is no difference between the two approaches. Much the same can be said of the scattered remarks to be found in the legislative history of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.
Next
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE
To broaden the opportunities for participation in biomedical research of ethnic minority faculty, students, and investigators by providing support for biomedical research programs at eligible institutions. But the long-awaited emancipation, while freeing the Negro from slavery, did not bring him citizenship or equality in any meaningful way. Sixteen persons were admitted under the special program in 1974, ibid. Javits ; 5266, 5807 remarks of Sen. This amendment was adopted by the House. First, for the reasons discussed supra at Lau itself, for the reasons set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph, strongly supports the view that voluntary race-conscious remedial action is permissible under Title VI. In each instance, the creation of unitary school systems, in which the effects of past discrimination had been "eliminated root and branch," Green, supra, at 438, was recognized as a compelling social goal justifying the overt use of race.
Next
Bakke v. Regents of University of California
There is no superior person by constitutional standards. We have never approved a classification that aids persons perceived as members of relatively victimized groups at the expense of other innocent individuals in the absence of judicial, legislative, or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations. Significance: Regents of Univ. In any admissions program which accords special consideration to disadvantaged racial minorities, a determination of the degree of preference to be given is unavoidable, and any given preference that results in the exclusion of a white candidate is no more or less constitutionally acceptable than a program such as that at Davis. Many have raised the question as to whether legislation is required at all. Harvard College now recruits not only Californians or Louisianans but also blacks and Chicanos and other minority students.
Next
The University of California V. Bakke: The Court's Three Decisions
JUSTICE MARSHALL, and MR. Allan Bakke applied to UC Davis medical school again in 1974. United States, Lee v. Respondent, a white male, applied to Davis in 1973 and 1974, in both years being considered only under the general admissions program. See ante, at 271 n. We reject petitioner's view, but, because our prior cases are in many respects inapposite to that before us now, we find it necessary to define with precision the meaning of that inexact term, "strict scrutiny. Our Brother POWELL, reaching the Constitution, concludes that, although race may be taken into account in university admissions, the particular special admissions program used by petitioner, which resulted in the exclusion of respondent Bakke, was not shown to be necessary to achieve petitioner's stated goals.
Next
Justice Thurgood Marshall, Dissent, Regents of U. of California v. Bakke, 1978
But the long-awaited emancipation, while freeing the Negro from slavery, did not bring him citizenship or equality in any meaningful way. The Harvard plan provides the model for what a university should emphasize for an acceptable program, including a statement of admissions objectives, with special reference to diversity and how it would be assessed in the admissions process. We see it in veterans' preferences. Jones, American Immigration 177-246 1960. For purposes of constitutional adjudication, there is no difference between the two approaches.
Next
University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265
The fatal flaw in petitioner's preferential program is its disregard of individual rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. It protected rights by ending quotas but allowing race be an admissions factor. Allan Bakke 1978 , was a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court. The vast majority of applicants demonstrate through test scores, high school records and teachers' recommendations that they have the academic ability to do adequate work at Harvard, and perhaps to do it with distinction. Congress' solution was to end the Government's complicity in constitutionally forbidden racial discrimination by providing the Executive Branch with the authority and the obligation to terminate its financial support of any activity which employed racial criteria in a manner condemned by the Constitution. And a Congress so exceptionally concerned with the satisfaction of procedural preliminaries before confronting fund recipients with the choice of a cutoff or of stopping discriminating would not permit private parties to pose precisely that same dilemma in a greatly widened category of cases with no procedural requirements whatsoever. Justice Harlan were soon to be realized.
Next
What was the decision in Regents vs Bakke?
We have held under Title VII that, where employment requirements have a disproportionate impact upon racial minorities, they constitute a statutory violation, even in the absence of discriminatory intent, unless the employer is able to demonstrate that the requirements are sufficiently related to the needs of the job. Nor can the program reasonably be regarded as stigmatizing the program's beneficiaries or their race as inferior. Accordingly, this case does not raise the question whether even a remedial use of race would be unconstitutional if it admitted unqualified minority applicants in preference to qualified applicants or admitted, as a result of preferential consideration, racial minorities in numbers significantly in excess of their proportional representation in the relevant population. Waxman pro se; by Leo Branton, Jr. This failure was not lost upon its opponents. Odegaard 1973 82 Wn. On this basis the special admissions program does not meet petitioner's definition of a quota.
Next
How Regents v. Bakke Changed Affirmative Action
Fenton, Immigrants and Unions: A Case Study 561-562 1975. The vast majority of applicants demonstrate through test scores, high school records and teachers' recommendations that they have the academic ability to do adequate work at Harvard, and perhaps to do it with distinction. United States, supra, at 223; Oyama v. Congress and the Executive have their responsibilities to uphold the Constitution also. SpecialAdmissionsProgramGeneralAdmissionsTotal ------------------------------------------------------- BlacksChicanosAsiansTotalBlacksChicanosAsiansTotal 1970.
Next