University of california vs bakke. Regents of the Uni v. of Cal. v. Bakke 2022-11-16
University of california vs bakke Rating:
9,7/10
770
reviews
The University of California vs. Bakke was a landmark Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of affirmative action in college admissions. The case was brought by Allan Bakke, a white applicant who was twice denied admission to the University of California, Davis School of Medicine. Bakke argued that the university's use of racial quotas in its admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race.
The University of California defended its use of affirmative action, arguing that it was necessary to achieve diversity in its student body and to remedy the effects of past discrimination. The university argued that diversity in the student body was essential to the educational mission of the university, and that the use of racial quotas was a necessary means of achieving that diversity.
In a split decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke, holding that the use of racial quotas in college admissions was unconstitutional. However, the Court also held that race could be considered as a factor in college admissions in order to achieve diversity, as long as it was not the sole factor.
The University of California vs. Bakke case was significant because it established the legal precedent for the use of affirmative action in college admissions. While it allowed for the consideration of race in admissions decisions, it also set limits on the use of racial quotas and ensured that race could not be the sole factor in admissions decisions.
Overall, the University of California vs. Bakke case highlights the ongoing debate over the use of affirmative action in higher education. While some argue that affirmative action is necessary to remedy the effects of past discrimination and to promote diversity, others believe that it unfairly discriminates against certain groups and should not be used in college admissions. The case continues to be an important precedent in the debate over affirmative action and its role in higher education.
Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke
In carrying out the requirement of this subsection, the Director shall work closely with organizations which have been active in seeking greater recognition and utilization of the scientific and technical capabilities of minorities, women, and handicapped individuals. III A The assertion of human equality is closely associated with the proposition that differences in color or creed, birth or status, are neither significant nor relevant to the way in which persons should be treated. Board of River Port Pilot Comm'rs, Because this principle is so deeply rooted it might be supposed that it would be considered in the legislative process and weighed against the benefits of programs preferring individuals because of their race. Moreover, the presence or absence of past discrimination by universities or employers is largely irrelevant to resolving respondent's constitutional claims. Turning to the program itself, Powell determined that it was not simply a goal, as the university had contended, but a racial qualification—assuming that UC Davis could find sixteen minimally qualified minority students, there were only 84 seats in the freshman class open to white students, whereas minorities could compete for any spot in the 100-member class. The problem confronting Congress was discrimination against Negro citizens at the hands of recipients of federal moneys. Here, in contrast, there is no question as to the sole reason for respondent's rejection — purposeful racial discrimination in the form of the special admissions program.
Lawrence III and Nathaniel S. 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. United States, Hirabayashi v. Dowdy ; 1619 remarks of Rep. No one can gainsay the premise that a university is more than an edifice of classrooms; it is a composite intellectual atmosphere to which both the faculty and students contribute substantially. Senator Humphrey, in words echoing statements in the House, explained that legislation was needed to accomplish this objective because it was necessary to eliminate uncertainty concerning the power of federal agencies to terminate financial assistance to programs engaging in racial discrimination in the face of various federal statutes which appeared to authorize grants to racially segregated institutions.
The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Cone Memorial Hospital, designed to insure that Federal funds are spent in accordance with the Constitution and the moral sense of the Nation. For example, § 7 a of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act, 1977, provides: "The Director of the National Science Foundation shall initiate an intensive search for qualified women, members of minority groups, and handicapped individuals to fill executive level positions in the National Science Foundation. Price stated: "This is a somewhat shocking finding for a medical educator like myself who has spent his professional life selecting applicants for admission to medical school, and in teaching and grading students after admission. The medical school has by no means undertaken to train black doctors simply to treat blacks, or to train chicano doctors simply to treat chicanos; a minority doctor's medical degree is not, of course, a license only to treat minorities. Colvin argued the cause and filed briefs for respondent. Neither the parties nor the amici challenge the validity of the statistics alluded to in our discussion.
Lau and the emphasis of Title VI and the HEW regulations on voluntary action, however, to require that an institution wait to be adjudicated to be in violation of the law before being permitted to voluntarily undertake corrective action based upon a good-faith and reasonable belief that the failure of certain racial minorities to satisfy entrance requirements is not a measure of their ultimate performance as doctors but a result of the lingering effects of past societal discrimination. In short, the standards for admission employed by the University are not constitutionally infirm except to the extent that they are utilized in a racially discriminatory manner. It is not an interest in simple ethnic diversity, in which a specified percentage of the student body is in effect guaranteed to be members of selected ethnic groups, with the remaining percentage an undifferentiated aggregation of students. Barresi, per se invalid because it was not colorblind. To achieve the American goal of true equality of opportunity among all races, more is required than merely removing the shackles of past formal restrictions; in the absence of special assistance, minorities will become a "self-perpetuating group at the bottom level of our society who have lost the ability and the hope of moving up. In fact, in all the federal cases cited by the dissent for this proposition post, p. Our question here is not whether the Davis medical school can constitutionally be compelled to establish benign racial classifications to remedy the exclusionary result of its past admission policies, but rather whether the Constitution forbids the medical school from taking such remedial action on its own.
University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265
Ashe for the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith et al. It modified that portion of the judgment denying respondent's requested injunction and directed the trial court to order his admission. This provision was clearly intended to avoid subjecting local educational agencies simultaneously to the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal administrative agencies in connection with the imposition of remedial measures designed to end school segregation. We find wholly unacceptable the notion that racial discrimination may be more readily justified because the persons who make the decision to discriminate belong to the same racial group as the person discriminated against. The record contains no evidence to justify the parochialism implicit in the latter assertion; and as to the former, we cite as eloquent refutation to racial exclusivity the comment of Justice Douglas in his dissenting opinion in De Funis: "The Equal Protection Clause commands the elimination of racial barriers, not their creation in order to satisfy our theory as to how society ought to be organized. We also observe preliminarily that although it is clear that the special admission program classifies applicants by race, this fact alone does not render it unconstitutional.
Regents of University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
If there are to be Jim Crow cars, moreover, there should be Jim Crow waiting saloons at all stations, and Jim Crow eating houses. Virginia, supra, at 11-12; Reitman v. Race is relevant to "diversity," of course, mainly because past societal discrimination has made race relevant to a student's attitudes and experiences. Keating ; 6562 remarks of Sen. In undertaking such a realistic review, however, a court must also be mindful that remedies for the continuing effects of past discrimination have proven distressingly elusive, and that it is therefore important that entities attempting in good faith to promote integration be given reasonable leeway in experimenting with various methods to achieve this compelling societal objective. Many questions, such as whether the Fourteenth Amendment barred only de jure discrimination or, in at least some circumstances, reached de facto discrimination, had not yet received an authoritative judicial resolution.
Regents of the university of california v bakke pdf
One of the most pressing medical problems in the country, of course, is the paucity of medical services available to residents in poor minority neighborhoods. . Humphrey and Page 342 Saltonstall. Of these, Wanner involved a school system held to have been de jure segregated and enjoined from maintaining segregation; racial districting was deemed necessary. Faced with the dilemma of choosing among a large number of "qualified" candidates, the Committee on Admissions could use the single criterion of scholarly excellence and attempt to determine who among the candidates were likely to perform best academically. 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. None of these sources lends support to the proposition that Congress intended to bar all race-conscious efforts to extend the benefits of federally financed programs to minorities who have been historically excluded from the full benefits of American life.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Declaring that the University could not take race into account in making admissions decisions, the trial court held the challenged program violative of the Federal Constitution, the State Constitution, and Title VI. The program has several aspects. Until at least 1973, the practice of medicine in this country was, in fact, if not in law, largely the prerogative of whites. Congress recognized that Negroes, in some cases with congressional acquiescence, were being discriminated against in the administration of programs and denied the full benefits of activities receiving federal financial support. Bakke Case Summary and Regents of the University Of California v.
