Supreme Court Ruling Summary

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)

The case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action was presented before the Supreme Court of the United States; the case questioned that whether a state violated the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment by maintaining a ban on the racial and sex preferences on the admissions in the public universities in the constitution of the state (Bernstein). The arguments on these cases started on 15th October, 2013 on an appeal for the Sixth Circuit from the United States Court of Appeal, which had established the rule in 2012 regarding Michigan ban, which was approved by the voters of the state in the year 2006. The Sixth Circuit emphasized that the Michigan ban was unconstitutional. But, the ban on the state was upheld, the Sixth

The next step was onto The Supreme Court of California. They said the same exact thing that the Superior Court of Yolo County said, however they said that Bakke should be admitted into the medical program because the University, not Bakke, failed to show that he would not be admitted without the specialty program. Regents of the University of California appealed this because both courts did not agree with the points that they made.

In 1994, a new case, Hopwood v. The University of Texas, was ruled on by the circuit court and interpreted in such a manner as to effectively end affirmative action in higher education for the states of Texas and Louisiana. The plaintiffs for the case were four applicants to the law school of The University of Texas, each of whom were denied admission while minority applicants with lower

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

A fragmented Supreme Court confirmed the judgment requesting Bakke's admission to the therapeutic school of the University of California at Davis and refuting the school's uncommon confirmations program. In any case, the Court did not disallow the school from considering race as a factor in future affirmations choices. Equity Lewis Powell, Jr., declared the Court's judgment. Four judges

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).

The Supreme Court justices had a discussion in the video about the use of foreign law in helping determine the outcome of judiciary cases. Justice Scalia spoke about with almost distain because he doesn’t think that foreign law should have any effect on what the Supreme Court decides is right or wrong for the American people. He thinks that the American people should have a say, but saw no point to looking at other countries for judiciary backing. Justice Stevens, however seemed to think that it serves the interest of the courts to look to foreign law for comparative purposes and so we can adapt to modern times. These two perspectives on foreign law seemed to come from a bigger disagreement between originalist and nonorginalist views. Justices

In the University of California, specifically the Medical School at Davis, the admission of students were separated into two separate categories: the regular admission students and the special admission students. The difference between the two different admissions is that while the regular was based on academic success, the special admissions was for minority groups and a method of affirmative action. A white man, Allan Bakke, was rejected into the school despite having higher scores than those accepted under the special admissions category causing him to sue in a state court where he claimed that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were being violated as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court agreed with Bakke and ordered that the University

In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white applicant, accused the University of Michigan law school for illegitimately utilizing race as a factor in the school’s admission process after being denied acceptance into the law school. The Supreme court ruled that the University of Michigan conducted a “highly individualized review,” and thus the use of “racial preferences ”was not unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice, Sandra O'Connor, affirmed the decision of the “Grutter V Bollinger: Majority Opinion” court case by stating the law school had ensured “that all factors that may contribute to student body diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race in admissions decisions”, being essential to the law school’s mission of shaping a heterogeneous

People generally agree that diversity is beneficial to college campuses. In 1978, in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court decided that race could be used as a factor in deciding college admissions - setting a precedent for the use of affirmative action (Lane A1). Justice Lewis Powell, who belonged to the majority opinion, cited diversity as the primary reason behind his decision. He acknowledged that there are "educational benefits that flow from an ethnically diverse student body" and that "few students...would choose to study in an academic vacuum, removed from the interplay of ideas and the exchange of views" (qtd. in Drehle A11).

Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, obligating defense contractors “not to discriminate against any worker because of race, creed, color, or national origin” but the term Affirmative action was not used until the Kennedy administration in the year 1961, only a few short years before the implementation of Johnson’s EO 11246. Along the way Affirmative Action was the center of much national attention as it was often seen as harboring and fueling white resentment from ethnic minorities causing reverse discrimination. In the year 1978, the resentment of whites caught wave in a Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The case stated that Affirmative Action created a reverse discrimination thus disparaging white youth from the same level of opportunity in the college application process. As a result, the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. Although according to Parrillo, since a more conservative court has taken less of a leading role in legislating away discrimination, Affirmative Action has endured a multitude of lawsuits to

Affirmative action is necessary in the college admission process for several reasons. Over the past several years this issue has become more prevalent. Often times the people who oppose affirmative action do so based on misconceptions. Whites generally believe that African Americans are as well off as whites when it comes to jobs, incomes, and education among other things (Americans for a Fair Chance). There have been many issues brought to light by several court cases. Some popular cases that have been made popular are the Fisher vs. University of Texas and the Grutter vs. Bollinger case. These cases involved controversy over discrimination and reverse discrimination in the college admissions process. In the 2003 Grutter vs. Bollinger case, the United States’ Supreme Court stated that, “student body diversity is a compelling interest in affirmative action programs at colleges and universities, given that

The California Supreme Court settled, that the quota system discriminated against racial parties. The Court determined that no applicant could be refused because of his race, in favor of another person who is less qualified. Four of the justices argued that any racial quota routine encouraged by government dishonored the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., instructed the medical school to permit Bakke to go to their school. During this case, white hostility was reduced with the goal of expanding advances for racial minorities through positive action. It is ok to constitutionally consider race as an element for entrances if to further educational diversity. But only if pondered alongside additional factors. Nevertheless,

The University of Michigan was sued by three students, Jennifer Gratz, Patrick Hammacher and Barbara Grutter. These three students claimed reverse discrimination by the university. The case ended up in the Supreme Court where a vote of 6-2 in favor of banning affirmative action. A reaction from the students attending the University of Michigan exploded, expressing concern for future students whom their background and ethnicity is African American and Hispanic. Affirmative Action was used to increase diversity in the schools. One of their concerns was that the banning of Affirmative Action on the university, it would decrease the opportunity to have a diverse campus as test scores do not accurately measure a student’s capability but are used