Case Study: Bakke V. California

The Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action case changed education. It prohibited state universities from considering a student 's race as a factor in their application. By accepting a student into a university over another student because of their race is completely unconstitutional concerning civil rights. Race-based preferences have major violations concerning the Equal Protection Clause. The court has the obvious authority to prohibit such a thing and they did because it’s the constitutional thing to do. Everyone is equal. Opinions may differ but in this case a majority of people would agree that

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

. . . And since California law did not allow for separate Mexican schools, the requirement that children at tend such schools could be considered arbitrary action taken without ‘due process of law.’”(Charles Wollenberg, All Deliberate Speed, 1976, p. 127) This case could not have gone to the Supreme Court because the law of the state said nothing about segregating Mexican Americans in the Constitution (http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/5views/5views5h99.htm)”. On Brown vs. the Board of Education it was a little different, because Black was considered a different race; and according to the Plessey vs. Ferguson case of 1896, it states it could segregate a race, as long as it provides a separate but equal law (http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/5views/5views5h99.htm).

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

In the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) case, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, tried applying to medical school twice and was denied, even though his GPA, and test scores were better than others who were recently admitted. According to the court, they believed that “no applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as measured by standards applied without regard to race”. Because of this, the shut down the system that discriminated against other races. In the Grutter case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that “Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational

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.

Bakke (Respondent), a white applicant to Davis Medical School, California sued the University, alleging his denial of admission on racial grounds was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

The case of Bakke vs. the University of California was one during a time in which racial segregation was more of a factor in society than it is today. It is important to recognize that because this case was very much based on race.

In the case State v. Ellis, Central State University RA discovered marijuana in the defendant’s dorm room while they were conducting an authorized, unannounced safety inspection. Campus police officers were then 19 notified and went to the room.While the campus police did not participate in the search, they were present in the room at the resident assistants’ invitation. The Ellis court concluded that the seizure of the marijuana was unconstitutional. It found that while the resident assistants’ search was authorized under the university’s policies and procedures, the later police entry into the room was unlawful because it was made without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. This case would be beneficial to Deary Jones because it

The Supreme Courts ruling does not align with the U.S. political culture and equality as our founding fathers intended. Equality means that people have the same opportunity to compete and achieve in this country regardless of race, gender, or religion. The students that work hard and have the higher grades and test scores should be the ones who get admitted to the university and race should not be a factor. In order to promote racial equality, race shouldn’t be considered and everyone should be given the same opportunity to work hard and study to achieve a spot a top

According to Regents of the University of California Blake, “It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy.” In other words, race interfered with whether or not you got an education. Amendment 14 states, “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” This proves that race deciding whether or not you get into a college is unconstitutional because any person has the liberty of getting a good education. Skin color or race shouldn’t be the key to your success. Life is about succeeding and where you come from should not decide whether or not you get an education. The court can’t just deprive someone of their education just because the color of their skin isn’t the same as the color of higher class

A muddy shoe print was use to link an unnamed man who was on the run from the police to his vehicle which was carrying 3 ½ pounds of marijuana. Police detective Chad Larner attempted to pull over this man in a Mazda for speeding but he would not stop. The man was eventually able to lose Larner. He then parked the car, got out and tried to hide. The police later found the car and found the man two blocks away. He attempted to bribe a young woman to walk with him by saying that he would give her $40. The woman told the police that he told her that he was in a police chase in which he was not the driver and he was trying to hide from the police. When the police searched the car they found four bags of the 3 ½ pounds of marijuana. The police also

In Grutter, the court held that promoting diversity in higher education is a compelling state interest because “..diversity promotes learning outcomes and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse work force, for society, and for the legal profession”. Grutter allowed school to adopt a race conscious admission policy without sacrificing school’s academic prestige, so long as the school had a good faith to consider race-neutral alternatives. In Brown, court recognized the importance of education to promote democratic society with the compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education. The court held that while “education is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values…such an opportunity…is a right that should be made available to

(1) Constitutional Question: Is the medical program of the University of California, giving different standards to minority’s, in violations of the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act or 1964?

& 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).