California Vs Bakke Case Study

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was argued on October 12, 1977 and decision of the Supreme Court was decided on June 26, 1978. It was questioned if the University of California violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by having an affirmative action policy that led to repeated rejection of Bakke’s application for admission to UC medical school at Davis.

In the years since, interpretations of these laws by the U.S. Supreme Court has defined how affirmative action policies are to be implemented. The Court has held that affirmative action policies are Constitutional wherever it can be shown that ""¦ there has been a clear history of racial discrimination" (United Press International). In 1978, the Court ruling in Regents of University of California v. Bakke defined the concept of 'reverse discrimination' by holding that slots for medical school admissions could not be set aside for minorities, because it could result in admitting less qualified candidates based on racial quotas. In 2003, in Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court defined the concept of 'individualized consideration' when it declared that an undergraduate affirmative action policy at the University of Michigan was unconstitutional because it focused on the race of applicants rather than their

There have been many cases before the United States Supreme Court similar to Mary Hamilton’s, including one that is currently pending. In an ongoing case, Fisher v. University of Texas (2012), Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian female, filed a lawsuit against the University because she was denied admission. Fisher argued that the University was discriminating in its selections based on race. The University argued that the factor of race in the admissions process was solely in the interest of promoting educational diversity. If the admissions of a school call for measures to be taken to ensure diversity, then the policies in place must be reviewed under a standard of strict scrutiny to determine if they are precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest (oyez.org). In Fisher v. University of Texas, the examination of strict scrutiny was not sufficiently conducted and is going to be argued once more on December 9, 2015. In this situation, using the factor of race in an admissions process is

During 1978, Alan Bakke was denied acceptance into the Medical School at the University of California. Bakke had a higher grade point average and higher test scores than other students who got accepted. Under the circumstances, Bakke stated he was denied acceptance because of his race. Not only did Bakke get denied because of his race, was a white male. Immediately he noticed and took the case to court. The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution stated Bakkes rights being the Equal Protection Clause. (Bakke v. University of California)

Resident of Shelby County, Tennessee, Charles Baker filed a suit against the Secretary of State Joe Carr. Baker`s complaint alleged that the Tennessee legislature had not redrawn its districts since 1901 in violation of the Tennessee Constitution. Baker then living in the urban area asserted that since the legislature had not been changed in over 10 years this would then affect his vote which would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause stated in the Fourteenth Amendment. Baker`s objective was to sought after an injunction stopping further elections and reapportionment.

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

The plaintiff Charles Barker, a mayor Tennessee; sued Joe Carr the Secretary of State of Tennessee. Baker complained that legislation had not redrawn districts since being under a 1901 statue; which is in violation of the Tennessee Constitution because reapportion is due every ten years. Baker alleged that TN legislators are depriving citizens of equal protection rights; which is in violation of the 14th amendment, Baker stated that this also caused underrepresentation in the General Assembly for those in urban areas. Baker argued that due to population change, votes in an urban districts held less value than those in suburban districts.

The petitioner Abigail N. Fisher, who is a woman of Caucasian decent, applied to the University of Texas in late 2008 (“Fisher v. University of Texas.”). Since Fisher was not ranked at the top of her class her application was denied (“Fisher v. University of Texas.”). The former University of Texas applicant Abigail N. Fisher believes that the Institutions discriminatory admission policies was the reason she did not get admitted into the school for the incoming freshman class of 2009, even though her application was much better than many of the admitted minority students. Fisher then filed a suit case against the University arguing that the University of Texas admission policy was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states it forbids

The case is brought to the Supreme Court by the Plaintiff Charles Baker suing Secretary of State of Tennessee Joe Carr, for the failure to redraw the legislative voting boundaries, something that was due over 60 years prior. A law that Tennessee legislature apportioned both houses and provided reapportionment every ten years on the basis of the population reported by the census, but failed to do since 1901. Baker argued that the population had shifted from the rural areas to the urban areas and that he himself was being affected and was being denied his equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. He sought to the court that that the state officials should hold an at-large election or they should halt the election process until the

Yes. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing by a 9-7 vote. ‘it would be difficult for UT to construct an admission policy that more closely resembles the policy approved by the supreme court in Grutter.’ Fifth Circuit claimed that, race was just a factor among factors, and UT didn’t just admit students because of their race, but because of student body diversity enrichment.

Another case involving the affirmative action policies was the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. This is another case of “seat holding” in where the school admission policy was reserving a number of sets for minority applicants. Bakke, a white applicant, was denied twice to the medical school. Minorities were allowed admittance with low-test scores though Bakke had high MCAT scores, GPA, and benchmarks (McBride, 2007). The result of the whole trial was that the California Supreme Court found that the system explicitly discriminated against racial groups and stated, “No applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less, as measured by standards applied without regard to race,” (McBride, 2007). The medical school was then ordered to shut down their quota system.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007) are cases regarding the use of affirmative action programs in schools. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of affirmative action in universities is constitutional in certain circumstances, but racial quotas are unconstitutional. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of affirmative action in school admission is constitutional if race is treated as one factor among many, the purpose is to achieve a “diverse” classroom, and it is not an individualized review of the applicant. In Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education,

Many whites who opposed the Civil Rights movement as a whole also opposed affirmative action. Although affirmative action was designed to make up the difference for the position of America's minorities, many white conservative Americans believed that it was "reverse discrimination". Many colleges, students, and workers went to court to remove this action. How affirmative action worked was tweaked after a law suit by a white man, Allan Bakke, where he was suing the University of California at Davis Medical Medical School for rejecting him and in turn, accepting a less qualified minority-group student for the spot. Anti-affirmative action protests started to pop up on different University grounds, and the discussion spread. Although the court case, Bakke v. University of California, ruled in the favor of Affirmative Action, the conservative movement had put the system in widespread question.

& Martinez, 2003). The Supreme Court ruled that the University of California was wrong in the way they approached a special admissions program that was open only to minority applicants (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). The ruling argued that the special admissions program violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. stated in his opinion on the Bakke case that quotas “would hinder rather than further attainment of genuine diversity” (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003, p. 141). Justice Powell, Jr. also wrote that race is only one part of many factors that an institution can consider in truly achieving a heterogeneous student population (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). By siding with Bakke in this case, the Supreme Court essentially outlawed the use of racial quotas in admissions processes in higher education, yet universities took this as it is okay to use race as a selective factor as long as there are no quotas (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003).