California Vs Bakke Summary

Two more cases that aroused much debate on the issue were the 2003 cases of Gratz vs. Bollinger and Grutter vs. Bollinger, in which two more-than-qualified students applied to the University of Michigan and were denied due to acceptance policies. The two women, Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter, took their cases to the Supreme Court with the plea that the University of Michigan is “treating people differently based on skin color, and that is unconstitutional” (Mears). The university openly stated that they have a point system in their acceptance process in which students receive extra point if they are of minority status. Mary Sue Coleman, the president of the University of Michigan stated, “[W]e

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

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 case of Bakke v. Regents of California was one in which Bakke, a white applicant to the University, was denied acceptance even though people of minority

However, the Superior Court of Yolo County stated that Bakke should not be admitted into the medical school because he failed to show that he would actually be admitted if there was no special admissions program. Both sides appealed because Regents of the University of California didn 't believe it was unconstitutional and Bakke wanted to be admitted into the medical program.

Having done so it would still need to be narrowly tailored so as not to unduly injure any associated groups or individuals. Powell determined that attaining a diverse student body in an institution of higher education was a compelling state interest. In order to be narrowly tailored to this interest, the institution should use race as a "plus" factor. The quota system that the University of California applied set aside positions for minority students and focused on having a diverse statistical surface rather than attaining actual diverse backgrounds. Rather, as was done at Harvard, it was expected that all students should be considered together and race used as a bonus for minorities that would help account for the special perspective such students could bring to the campus (Schauer 589-597). While Powell's outline for programs had plenty of dissenters, none of them ever made it to a prominent position in the court system and so, since 1978, the rules of Bakke have been the proverbial law of the land. That is, until recently.

Race equality has been an arduous issue in the United States. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) is a landmark Supreme Court case that brought scrutiny to racial discrimination in the college admission process. The Encyclopedia Of Law And Higher Education introduces the discussion of the University of California at Davis’ special minority admissions policy at their medical school. The case was first heard by the Supreme Court of California and later taken to the United States Supreme Court (Russo 363). The short and long term effects of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) have changed the procedure for college admittance all over the United States of America.

minority applicants was constitutional. Bakke sued the University of California for violating the Civil Right Act of 1964. The Supreme Court of California agreed and ruled that Bakke being excluded out of 16 out of 100 spots simply because of race was discrimination(Mcbride,2005). Although the Affirmative Action was utilized to protect African Americas who have been historical discriminated against more than Caucasians because of the racial quota system that fact is irrelevant to the case (Mcbride,2005).

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the Court and wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Even though the Court had previously ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that racial diversity can be a compelling government interest in university admissions, they ruled that this case was not governed by Grutter. The District’s goal to prevent racial imbalance was not a constitutionally legitimate use of race according to the Court’s standards. The Court held that the District’s tiebreaker plan was not targeted toward any demonstrable educational benefit from racial diversity. Instead, they said it was actually targeted toward demographic goals. Justice Kennedy agreed that the District’s use of race was unconstitutional, but in a separate opinion he stressed that public schools may sometimes consider race to ensure equal educational

This court case began in the early 1970’s when the University of California created a double sided medical program. The reason for this school was to increase the number of disadvantaged students in the medical area. In order to be accepted, the college looked at the student’s MCAT (Medical College Admissions Test), overall science grade averages, and biographical data. From evaluating this, the college came to decide the student’s “benchmark” score. (The Supreme Court Website, Expanding Civil Rights)

& 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).

Other leaders in American society believe that the implementation of Affirmative Action policies should have a cut-off date. Justice Sander O’ Connor who presided over the landmark Affirmative Action case Grutter v. Bollinger (which upheld the Affirmative Action admission policy for the University of Michigan Law School) stated that "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today (Richman 69 )". This Statement reflects the Courts and Justice O’Connor’s belief “that a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend the fundamental principle of equal protection.” This statement seems to imply that affirmative action policies promotes reverse racism.

Gratz v. Bollinger, was the case that determined the legitimacy of the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action policy. Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both applied for and were denied admission to the University of Michigan between 1995 and 1997. At the time, to be accepted to the university a candidate had to have a score of 100 points with minorities receiving automatic 20 points (Gratz v. Bollinger 12). In 2003, The Supreme Court ruled University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy unconstitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist, wrote the University's point system “ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed" (GRATZ V. BOLLINGER 3). Grutter v. Bollinger, was the 2003 case where the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy. Barbara Grutter, who was rejected from the school, filed the suit believing that she had been discriminated against because of her race. In a five-to-four majority, the Supreme Court ruled that the law school could use race as a factor without violating the 14th Amendment. Justice O'Connor, wrote that the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body" (GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER 2).In 2006, Proposal 2 also known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative was passed which means Affirmative Action was banned from all public institutions. The constitutionality of the amendment was challenged in federal court leading to the case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision in 2014 upheld Proposal 2 saying "that there is no authority...for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether