The medical school at University of California Davis had a special affirmative action program where minority groups members or economically and/or educationally disadvantaged applicants were given a special admission process where 16 places of the class’s 100 were reserved for them. Bakke was examined under the general admissions process and denied both times he applied despite his scores being significantly higher than the special program’s admitted students in both tests and interviews. Bakke then took to court claiming that the medical school had denied him admission solely on the basis of race, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which states that no person shall …show more content…
on the ground of race or color be excluded from participating in any program receiving federal financial aid. The Supreme Court ruled that Bakke had been unconstitutionally denied and was given admission and that any racial quota system supported by the government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court also contended that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria.
When reviewing this case, several question came to mind. What were the differences in the special admissions and general admissions process? Would the special program accept disadvantaged whites and would that have influenced the decision of the court? What classifies as a minority or disadvantaged? To what extent can race be used as a criteria in the admission process? The general admissions process at the University of California Medical School at Davis had certain criteria. One of those was a 2.5 gpa cutoff and a interview rating on a scale of 1 to 100. Those examined under the special program were exempt from the 2.5 gpa cutoff and were not ranked amongst those in the general admission process in an effort by the school to redress minority exclusions from the medical profession. Before this effort, the class contained three Asians, no blacks, no Hispanics, and no American Indians. The special program resulted in the admission of 21 black students, 30 Hispanics, and 12 Asians, compared to the regular admissions program which produced 1 black, 6 Hispanics, and 37 Asians. Majority of the minorities admitted, predominantly blacks and hispanics, were admitted
solely because they were given a separate admissions process where they competed against other minorities to meet a quota. Had they been ranked amongst the general admissions applicants, a significant loss in black and hispanic students was recorded. In the special program, none of the disadvantaged whites who applied were admitted. In 1974 the special committee explicitly considered only "disadvantaged" special applicants who were members of one of the designated minority groups further increasing the racial bias. Because no disadvantaged whites were admitted, the school was establishing a quota of minorities to accept, which was deemed unconstitutional. The special program was designed specifically to admit more minorities into the medical school to increase diversity. Based on the admissions in the special program, the Medical School viewed minority groups as members of the Black, Chicanos, Asian, and American Indian communities. Despite screening each application to see whether the applicant was economically or educationally deprived, no formal definition of “disadvantaged” was established. In the ruling, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action. It fought against quotas and affirmative action programs which violated the Fourteenth Amendment and gave an unfair advantage to minority groups as well as allowed the constitutional use of affirmative action to solve racial discrimination and promote diversity.
When Bakke applied again in 1974 he was once again rejected. This time Bakke sued the University of California. His position was that the school had excluded him on the basis of his race and violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the California Constitution, and civil rights legislation. The trial court ruled in Bakke's favor, however they did not order the University of California to admit him. Bakke appealed to the California Supreme Court where they ruled that the school's admissions programs were unconstitutional and ordered the school to admit Bakke as a student.
In 1973 a thirty-three year-old Caucasian male named Allan Bakke applied to and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. In 1974 he filed another application and was once again rejected, even though his test scores were considerably higher than various minorities that were admitted under a special program. This special program specified that 16 out of 100 possible spaces for the students in the medical program were set aside solely for minorities, while the other 84 slots were for anyone who qualified, including minorities. What happened to Bakke is known as reverse discrimination. Bakke felt his rejections to be violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, so he took the University of California Regents to the Superior Court of California. It was ruled that "the admissions program violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment"1 The clause reads as follows:"...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."2 The court ruled that race could not be a factor in admissions. However, they did not force the admittance of Bakke because the court could not know if he would have been admitted if the special admissions program for minorities did not exist.
Throughout the 1950s, the NAACP with the help of Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall pursued lawsuits against the “separate but equal” policy instated by the Plessy v. Ferguson case. For years, colleges and universities in which there was no African American counterpart avoided court orders to admit black students by hastily setting up “equal” counterparts. But in 1950, the Supreme Court ordered that a black student be admitted to the University of Texas Law School, despite the fact that the state “…had established a “school” for him in the basement” (Foner 953). The court declared that there was no way that this “school” was equal, and demanded that the student be admitted to the law school, sparking an era that called for desegregation. Later, in 1954, a landmark decision came from the Supreme Court as a result of the Brown v. BOE case. In the early 1950s, a man named Oliver Brown went to court to fight that fact that his daughter “…was forced to walk across dangerous railroad tracks each morning rather than being allowed to attend a nearby school restricted to whites” (Foner 953). The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and on May 17, 1954, the court declared that “Segregation in public education…violated the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment” (Foner 954), arguing that the
Affirmative action, the act of giving preference to an individual for hiring or academic admission based on the race and/or gender of the individual has remained a controversial issue since its inception decades ago. Realizing its past mistake of discriminating against African Americans, women, and other minority groups; the state has legalized and demanded institutions to practice what many has now consider as reverse discrimination. “Victims” of reverse discrimination in college admissions have commonly complained that they were unfairly rejected admission due to their race. They claimed that because colleges wanted to promote diversity, the colleges will often prefer to accept applicants of another race who had significantly lower test scores and merit than the “victims”. In “Discrimination and Disidentification: The Fair-Start Defense of Affirmative Action”, Kenneth Himma responded to these criticisms by proposing to limit affirmative action to actions that negate unfair competitive advantages of white males established by institutions (Himma 277 L. Col.). Himma’s views were quickly challenged by his peers as Lisa Newton stated in “A Fair Defense of a False Start: A Reply to Kenneth Himma” that among other rationales, the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action (Newton 146 L. Col.). This paper will also argue that the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action because it cannot be fairly applied in the United States of America today. However, affirmative action should still be allowed and reserved for individuals whom the state unfairly discriminates today.
In 2001 statistics reported by the United States Department of Education indicated that during 1997-1998 African American students received 8.3% of bachelor’s degrees awarded. Concurrently, Hispanic students as well as Asian or Pacific Islander students received 6.0%, while American Indian/Alaskan Native students only accounted for .7%. Although statistics from agencies who report differ, clearly on a national level, minority students
The Supreme Court's ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger and in Gratz v. Bollinger are two compelling and complex cases. In the Grutter v. Bollinger case, the Supreme court favored that race and ethnicity along with other factors are justifiable in the admission process of promoting a diverse and inclusive student body on the premises of state law schools. I agree with the court's decision because minorities only make up a small percentage on college campuses and universities, and that race and ethnicity does play a crucial role in recruiting students of colors from various cultural backgrounds. Students must be trained scholars who know how to interact with people from all walks of life and they must be able to adapt and understand different people in different environments in a given context. The goal is for everyone
Affirmative action has been a controversial topic ever since it was established in the 1960s to right past wrongs against minority groups, such as African Americans, Hispanics, and women. The goal of affirmative action is to integrate minorities into public institutions, like universities, who have historically been discriminated against in such environments. Proponents claim that it is necessary in order to give minorities representation in these institutions, while opponents say that it is reverse discrimination. Newsweek has a story on this same debate which has hit the nation spotlight once more with a case being brought against the University of Michigan by some white students who claimed that the University’s admissions policies accepted minority students over them, even though they had better grades than the minority students. William Symonds of Business Week, however, thinks that it does not really matter. He claims that minority status is more or less irrelevant in college admissions and that class is the determining factor.
Reed, Rodney J. (1983) Affirmative Action in Higher Education: Is It Necessary? The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 52, No. 3, Persistent and Emergent Legal Issues in Education: 1983 Yearbook, 332-349.
Racial preference has indisputably favored Caucasian males in society. Recently this dynamic has been debated in all aspects of life, including college admission. Racial bias has intruded on the students’ rights to being treated fairly. Admitting students on merit puts the best individuals into the professional environment. A university’s unprejudiced attitude towards race in applicants eliminates biases, empowers universities to harness the full potential of students’ intellect, and gives students an equal chance at admission.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that any program that receives federal funding and assistance may not discriminate based on race, national origin, or skin color. All students are allowe...
Although Harvey Mudd is not the only school that does not offer in or out-of-state tuition, Montana does, including the most chosen school in the state, Montana State University. For 2016-2017 undergraduate as a Montana resident, the tuition total which includes their standard in-state tuition fee, dorm room, and books/supplies, the total per semester is approximately $8,545. On the other hand, attending Montana State University as a non Montana resident includes a higher flat tuition price with a total of $16,695 per semester (‘Expenses’). With a list of fees, Montana State University, includes every situation one could ever be involved to be required pay a certain fee. Whether that fee be a freshman fee, a transfer fee, graduate fee,
Lael is going to review the following three manager in the company: Liz, Roy, and Quang Yeh. Below is facts that I think might have a bearing on this problem, show as a table so make us easier to compare their difference, which is good for making utilitarian approach.
In my acceptance letter, a sentence drew my attention: the Pennsylvania State University has a tradition of excellence. The Pennsylvania State University is famous for its excellent education quality. However, a class with too much students can harm its education quality. In-soo Shin and Jae Young Chung utilizd meta analysis to conduct a research that suggests that the class size can affect the achievements of the students. According to the Penn state course schedule, the class size of basic economic classes, such as econ 102, econ 104, econ 302, econ 304,econ 106 and econ 306, ranges from about 200 to more than 300; an econ 302 class even has 690 students in the class. When the class becomes too crowded, students can’t get involved in the
Bakke was another win for the Civil Rights movement, though this one wasn’t as big as Brown v. Board of Education. The case came about when a thirty-five-year-old man named Allan Bakke was denied entrance to the University of California twice (www.oyez.org/Regents). The University of California reserved sixteen places in each freshman class for qualified minorities, even if a white had better test scores or a higher g.p.a. The university said that they did that to get more minorities in the medical field, a field which at the time was dominated by whites. Allan Bakke claimed that the school 's admission policy violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the fourteenth amendment (www.pbs.org/Regents). The Supreme Court ruled that the university’s use of racial quotas was unconstitutional but the school 's use of affirmative action was constitutional (www.pbs.org/Regents). The court justified their ruling by saying that a college can use race as an admissions factor but they must use other factors as well. So basically being a minority does not mean that you are automatically admitted to a college but it can help thanks to affirmative action. Affirmative action is still used by universities today thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case. It helps struggling minority groups get a fair opportunity when it comes to an
Grutter v Bollinger was about a student, Barbara Grutter, with a great GPA being denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School. She sued alleging that the university rejected her based on race to keep the school diverse. Bollinger was the president of the school and was the defendant. The schools admission policy allowed for the school to be diverse in race. The Supreme Court deemed the policy constitutional. The school’s admission policy is a “highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file” according to Justice O’Connor. Basically it is constitutional because the school wanted to promote school diversity, which can improve an individual’s social education, not race discrimination. It is important because the Supreme Court allowed affirmative action in school admission. Justice Thomas had a different opinion. According to Thomas, “there is no compelling state interest in Michigan maintaining an elite law school, due to the fact that a number of states do not have law schools, let alone elite ones.