Non-English Chinese Case Summary

Question: Did the University of California violate 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?

minorities argued that America was denying them the right to equal education opportunities. Those who opposed the idea of segregation felt that there was no such thing as separate but equal. They felt that this was an infringement on their 14th amendment rights. The court later agreed that education was the foundation for the American

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

In 1981 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals established three criteria for determining program adequacy and appropriate action for limited English proficiency students as it ruled in favor of Castaneda, the plaintiff. The program must be:

• During the Catañeda vs. Pickard case a father claimed that his two children were not having their educational rights met at their school in the Raymondville Independent School District. The father, Mr. Catañeda, further stated that the Raymondville Independent School District was not providing a proper bilingual education program for his children.

Board of Education(1954) case were Linda Brown, Oliver Brown, Robert Carter, Harold Fatzer, Jack Greenberg, Thurgood Marshall, Frank D. Reeves, Charles Scott, and John Scott("Teaching with documents:," ). Linda lived not to far from a local African American school, but her father had other plans for her and wanted her to go to an all white school so that she could obtain a better education. She was denied the opportunity, so her father teamed up with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(NAACP). The 14th Amendment was violated when she was denied the right to go to the all white school(Collins). The 14th Amendment says that a states have to give citizen equal protection under all circumstances. Brown v. Board of Education was not immediately ruled. This case ruling was deliberately thought through and started the trend of desegregating schools years later. In the opinion they believed that segregating the white and black students was the right thing to do. Students would be “offended or intimidated” if they had peers of a different race. That was their way of saying that she should not be allowed to attend the all white school in her community. This case had no had no dissenting opinion. By the case beginning combined to other similar case it was brought to the Supreme Court. They overruled “separate but equal” because of the previous case Plessy v. Ferguson because it violate the 14th amendment("Brown v. Board," 2012).

. . . 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).

In 1982, the United States Supreme Court reviewed a case regarding the education of undocumented Mexican children in Texas (Plyler v. Doe, 1982). Arguments stated that when the school district denied education to these children, the school district violated the children's right under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, in 1975, Texas passed a law that stated that school districts have the legal right to withhold state funds for educating unauthorized immigrants. This class action suit was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after the lower courts upheld the school district's decision.

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)

deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."The supreme court assures that the fourteenth amendment guarantees that that education would be the same for all .. that education will be equal for every person no matter the color, where they came from how they look, and who they are. In this case, any child denied an education would not succeed in

The Constitutional Issue: This issue violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment because segregated schools for people of race are unconstitutional and unequal.

For Example, the 14 amendment states equal protection to any citizen, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,”(Holt). In the Plessy v. Furgason case the court had decided that segregation between student’s schools would be legal if the colored students schools were the same as the white students schools. the school board of Topeka thought that they were fulfilling this what was being asked, which was giving students equal education. In Addition, The Board thought that education was equal, “Attorneys for Topeka argued that the separate schools for nonwhites in Topeka were equal in every way, and were in complete conformity with the Plessy standard. Buildings, the courses of study offered, and the quality of teachers were completely comparable. In fact, because some federal funds for Native Americans only applied at the nonwhite schools, some programs for minority children were actually better than those offered at the schools for whites.”(Info). The school

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 University of California, Davis Medical School reserved 16 spots out of 100 in any given class for underprivileged minorities. The respondent, when compared to students admitted under the special admissions program, had more favorable objective indicia of performance, while his race was the only distinguishing characteristic. The respondent sued, alleging that the special admissions program denied him equal protection of laws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution.

These cases helped to shape multicultural education during the 70’s. In 1974, the Lau vs. Nichols case was brought about by Chinese students in California who claimed that they were not achieving in school because of their limited proficiency in the English Language. The students argued that not enough was being done in school to help overcome this challenge and felt it was because of their culture. The judge ruled in favor of the students and the case established the right of language minority students to educational accommodations. This verdict helped to make way for the 1979 case of Martin Luther King Elementary School vs. Ann Arbor School District. The suit was brought about by Black students who believed that the district did not seriously take their speaking of non-standard English seriously and this inadvertently caused them to obtain low reading scores. The judge ruled that the school district was responsible for identifying Black English speakers in the schools and must use that knowledge in teaching such students how to read Standard English. One key case that helped to prove the change that multicultural education had in the classroom was the 1970 case of Diana V. California State Board of Education. Mexican students felt that the school system did not take into account their Mexican culture and language into testing. The judge ruled in their favor and when the students were tested in their native language the