Regents of the university of california vs bakke. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) 2022-10-22
Regents of the university of california vs bakke Rating:
4,8/10
676
reviews
The Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke was a landmark Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of affirmative action in college admissions. At the heart of the case was Allan Bakke, a white applicant who was denied admission to the University of California, Davis medical school twice, despite having higher test scores and grades than some of the minority students who were admitted.
Bakke argued that the school's affirmative action policy, which set aside a certain number of spots for minority students, was discriminatory against him because of his race. He argued that the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal treatment under the law for all citizens.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Bakke, stating that the use of racial quotas in college admissions was unconstitutional. However, the Court also held that race could be considered as one factor among many in college admissions, as long as it was not the sole determining factor.
This decision had a significant impact on affirmative action policies at colleges and universities across the United States. It established that race could not be the sole factor in admissions decisions, but it also recognized that race could be considered as a factor in order to promote diversity on college campuses.
The Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke case remains a controversial and highly debated topic to this day. Some argue that affirmative action is necessary in order to address the historic and ongoing effects of discrimination against minority groups. Others believe that affirmative action is itself discriminatory, and that it is unfair to give preference to some students over others based on their race.
Regardless of one's personal views on the issue, it is clear that the Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke case has had a significant impact on the way colleges and universities consider race in their admissions processes. It has shaped the ongoing conversation about affirmative action, and will continue to do so in the future.
Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke
JUSTICE BLACKMUN, the pliable notion of "stigma" is the crucial element in analyzing racial classifications, see, e. In this case, unlike Lau and United Jewish Organizations, there has been no determination by the legislature or a responsible administrative agency that the University engaged in a discriminatory practice requiring remedial efforts. A At least since Green v. In a similar vein, United Jewish Organizations v. County School Board, Brown I, supra, announced the constitutional principle that equal educational opportunity and participation in all aspects of American life could not be denied on the basis of race. No disadvantaged whites were admitted under the special program, though many applied. This program set aside 16 of the 100 places in the entering class for minority groups titled blacks, Chicanos, Asians, and American Indians.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
It ordered that the university provide proof that Bakke's application would have been rejected under a program that was not based on race. See Supplemental Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16 n. Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania; Southern Illinois Builders Assn. About one-fifth of the total number of special applicants were invited for interviews in 1973 and 1974. In these circumstances, the conclusion implicit in the regulations — that the lingering effects of past discrimination continue to make race-conscious remedial programs appropriate means for ensuring equal educational opportunity in universities — deserves considerable judicial deference. The ratings were added together to arrive at each candidate's "benchmark" score.
Other sponsors of the legislation agreed with Representative Celler that the function of Title VI was to end the Federal Government's complicity in conduct, particularly the segregation or exclusion of Negroes, inconsistent with the standards to be found in the antidiscrimination provisions of the Constitution. In particular localities it is reported that Negroes have been cut off from relief rolls, or denied surplus agricultural commodities, or otherwise deprived of the benefit of fed erally assisted programs, in retaliation for their participa tion in voter registration drives, sit-in demonstrations and' the like. SGPA OGPA Verbal Science Infor. III, it must be considered and rejected. In the first place, the medical school's special admission program is, in a very real and important sense, intended to overcome the continuing effect of past discrimination in this country.
Board of Education, B The State certainly has a legitimate and substantial interest in ameliorating, or eliminating where feasible, the disabling effects of identified discrimination. The Constitutional guarantees that right to every person regardless of his background. It is no more than what our Constitution guarantees. Details concerning them may be found in the Office of Management and Budget, 1977 Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 205-206, 401-402. In finding for Bakke, the Court was able to minimize opposition to affirmative action programs. New York City Dept. Under these circumstances, there is no justification for treating the remedial racial classification embodied in the special admissions program as equivalent to invidious racial classification, and no reason to declare the program presumptively unconstitutional.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. Respondent argues that there is a private right of action, invoking the test set forth in Cort v. The further refinements sometimes required help to illustrate the kind of significance attached to race. Thus, in McDonald v. With him on the briefs were Attorney General Bell, Assistant Attorney General Days, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Brian K. Both Titles carefully provided for private actions as well as for official participation in enforcement.
Petitioner did not arrange for respondent to attend a different medical school in order to desegregate Davis Medical School; instead, it denied him admission and may have deprived him altogether of a medical education. Rather, as had the California court, they focused exclusively upon the validity of the special admissions program under the Equal Protection Clause. Significantly, there was frequent reference to Simkins v. The Fourteenth Amendment, the embodiment in the Constitution of our abiding belief in human equality, has been the law of our land for only slightly more than half its 200 years. Odegaard; The "Non-Decision" With A Message 1975 75 Colum. Thus, the critical criteria are often individual qualities or experience not dependent upon race but sometimes associated with it.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 1978
It is sometimes claimed that such reasoning ignores the fact that the white majority is not a homogeneous group and that preferential treatment of minorities may in fact be utilized as a means of discriminating against a small subclass of the majority group. Carey, UJO opinion of WHITE, J. In several States, agricultural exten sion services, supported by Federal funds, maintain racially segregated offices for Negroes and whites. Thus, our cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act have held that, in order to achieve minority participation in previously segregated areas of public life, Congress may require or authorize preferential treatment for those likely disadvantaged by societal racial discrimination. Hopkins, supra, Second, in addition to the history and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, constitutional decisions explicating the appropriate scope of judicial review provide a sound basis for the differential judicial treatment of invidious and benign racial classifications. True, whites are excluded from participation in the special admissions program, but this fact only operates to reduce the number of whites to be admitted in the regular admissions program in order to permit admission of a reasonable percentage — less than their proportion of the California population The constitutionality of the special admissions program is buttressed by its restriction to only 16% of the positions in the Medical School, a percentage less than that of the minority population in California, see ibid.
The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Harvey for the Pacific Legal Foundation; by Benjamin Vinar and David I. Keating ; 6562 remarks of Sen. While the overall class size was still 50, the prescribed number was 8; in 1973 and 1974, when the class size had doubled to 100, the prescribed number of special admissions also doubled, to 16. Green, in this record— as opposed to some of the general literature cited by MR. There is no principled basis for deciding which groups would merit "heightened judicial solicitude" and which would not.
University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265
The Supreme Court declined to re-view the case, allowing it to stand as law in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Attorney General Robert Kennedy testified that regulations had not been written into the legislation itself because the rules and regulations defining discrimination might differ from one program to another so that the term would assume different meanings in different contexts. Eisenstein, and Vincent F. It was rather with the evil of the segregation of Negroes in federally financed programs and, in some cases, their arbitrary exclusion on account of race from the benefits of such programs. There are no rival groups which can claim that they, too, are entitled to preferential treatment.
