2.07
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Indian River State College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
POS1041-23
Subject
Political Science
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by MasterMantis140
Use one of the options below to complete the Civil Rights FRQ Assignment
Civil Rights FRQ —Option 1
Summary: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
(1978)
Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the
University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The
school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified"
minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, to redress longstanding,
unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college
GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the
two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California
courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the
basis of race. The case asked whether the university violated the Fourteenth
Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an
affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for
admission to its medical school.
There was no single majority opinion in this case. Four of the justices contended that
any racial quota system supported by government was unconstitutional. Justice Lewis
F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit
Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as
employed at the school were also unconstitutional. The remaining four justices held that
the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was
constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use
of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to
minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending
gains for racial minorities.
Source: Oyez, Facts and Opinion of the Case, Regents
of the University of California v.
Bakke
A. Identify the constitutional provision that is common in both Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke (1978)
and Brown v. Board of Education, I
(1954)
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the constitutional provision that was shared by Brown v. Board of Education (I) (1954) and Regents
of the University of California v. Bakke (1978).
B. Based on the constitutional provision provided in part (A), explain how the
decision in
Brown v. Board of Education, I (1954) compare to the decision in
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978).
A turning point in American legal history was reached in the 1954 Brown v. Board
of Education (I) ruling, which ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional and set the stage for the eventual deconstruction of segregationist practices in other spheres of society. C.
Explain how voters who disagree with the holding in Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke (1978)
could act to limit its impact.
Those who disapprove of the ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) have several options for mitigating its effects. They might push for federal or state legislation to ban the use of race as a criterion in higher education admissions decisions, or they could propose constitutional amendments. They could also back public office candidates who agree with them
on affirmative action and who pledge to nominate justices and judges who will probably rule against racial admissions practices in the future. To spread awareness of the problem and rally support for their cause, voters can also take part in grassroots activism by planning demonstrations or lobbying campaigns.
A. The constitutional provision common in both Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) and Brown v. Board of Education (I) (1954) is the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help