An analysis of the regents for the university of california versus bakke

Accord, Missouri ex rel. Spitler for Timothy J. The decision rested solely on the statute, which had been construed by the responsible administrative agency to reach educational practices "which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination," ibid.

Regents of the Uni v. of Cal. v. Bakke

Although a university must have wide discretion in making the sensitive judgments as to who should be admitted, constitutional limitations protecting individual rights may not be disregarded. The concepts of "majority" and "minority" necessarily reflect temporary arrangements and political judgments.

The full committee then reviewed the file and scores of each applicant and made offers of admission on a "rolling" basis. Stevens dissents, citing that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of prohibits the denial of any individual on the basis of race from participation in any program receiving federal funding.

The special admissions program operated with a separate committee, a majority of whom were members of minority groups. As I have said, the bill has a simple purpose. Under the regular procedure, candidates whose overall under-graduate grade point averages fell below 2.

Some increased outreach and recruitment efforts; some worked with secondary schools to strengthen college preparatory programs for black high school students. Reid for Howard University; by Harry B. Owens, and Donald L. Nor has this Court held that discreteness and insularity constitute necessary preconditions to a holding that a particular classification is invidious.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE

It is necessary to decide which, if any, of these purposes is substantial enough to support the use of a suspect classification. For reasons expressed in separate opinions, my Brothers MR.

At the same time, the preferred [ U. United States, U. Examination of the voluminous legislative history of Title VI reveals a congressional intent to halt federal funding of entities that violate a prohibition of racial discrimination similar to that of the Constitution.

MERGE exists and is an alternate of. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal. If these questions were answered affirmatively, the application was forwarded to the special admissions committee. Over the next two years, the faculty devised a special admissions program to increase the representation of "disadvantaged" students in each Medical School class.

Equal Protection

To hold otherwise would be to convert a remedy heretofore reserved for violations of legal rights into a privilege that all institutions throughout the Nation could grant at their pleasure to whatever groups are perceived as victims of societal discrimination.

Harvard College now recruits not only Californians or Louisianans but also blacks and Chicanos and other minority students.

Bakke decision

It would, in short, assure the existing right to equal treatment in the enjoyment of Federal funds. Inhaving achieved the rank of captainhe was granted an honorable discharge.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

Vsee, e. Despite a strong benchmark score of out ofBakke was rejected. It is necessary to decide which, if any, of these purposes is substantial enough to support the use of a suspect classification. United States, U. This is as it should be, since those political judgments are the product of rough compromise struck by contending groups within the democratic process.

Who is Alan Bakke?

This rationale, however, has never been invoked in our decisions as a prerequisite to subjecting racial or ethnic distinctions to strict scrutiny.Regents of the University of California v. Bakke U.S.98 S. Ct.57 L. Ed. 2dU.S. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Search. Table of Contents.

Constitutional Law Keyed to Chemerinsky. should not pay attention to past discrimination in reviewing the policies of the University, as this is tantamount. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE, () No. Argued: October 12, Decided: June 28, The Medical School of the University of California at Davis (hereinafter Davis) had two admissions programs for the entering class of students - the regular admissions program and the special admissions program.

Bakke, a white man, not admitted to a school b/c the spots were reserved for "qualified minorities".Bakke. SC ruled that this violates the equal protection clause. 5 votes for Bakke, 4 votes against The question was did the University of California violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil RIghts Act ofby practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?

Turning to Bakke's appeal, the court ruled that, since Bakke had established that the University had discriminated against him on the basis of his race, the burden of proof shifted to the University to demonstrate that he would not have been admitted even in the absence of the special admissions program.

[n13] Id. atP.2d at In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (), the Supreme Court ruled that a university's use of racial "quotas" in its admissions process was unconstitutional, but a school's use of " affirmative action " to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances.

Download
An analysis of the regents for the university of california versus bakke
Rated 4/5 based on 55 review