*Regents+of+the+U.+of+California+v.+Bakke



This case was argued on October 12, 1977, and decided on June 26,1978 1/1 2/2 At the time of this case, The Medical School of the University of California at Davis had a special admissions program to designate a small part of its entering class of 100 students. Sixteen special admissions students were chosen each year, and they were given a separate method of admission, one that did not compare them to the students in the regular admissions program or require them to meet the grade cutoff of having a grade point average of 2.5. Allan Bakke applied to the school under their general admissions program in both 1973 and 1974. He was rejected both times, despite having higher grades and test scores than some minority applicants who were accepted under the special admissions program. He claimed this was an example of reverse discrimination and took the case to court. He demanded to be admitted into the school, saying that the special admissions program was unlawful and he had been rejected based on his race. GOOD 5/5
 * Date: **
 * Summary: **

Bakke's argument was that the University of California had violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court was required to decide whether the school's special admissions program was legal, and also whether affirmative action programs in general were constitutional. Affirmative action is the idea of giving minorities special consideration in employment, education and contracting decisions. 5/5
 * Constitutional Issue: **

The court decided that Bakke should be allowed to attended the Medical School of the University of California at Davis. They stated that the case fell under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The admissions program at the University of California was unconstitutional because it operated on a quota, with a designated number of admission spots reserved for minorities. However, the court said that not all affirmative action programs were unconstitutional, and race could be considered as a factor in deciding admissions to a school. The vote was 5 votes for Bakke and 4 votes against Bakke. GOOD 5/5
 * Decision: **

The significance of this case to the United States today is that it protects people's rights to equal protection under the law. It makes affirmative action programs constitutional, and allows school to consider an applicant's race when deciding admissions. It also shows that affirmative action can plausibly be taken too far, when it goes beyond creating equal opportunities and begins to be unfair to non-minority applicants. This raises questions of whether or not affirmative action actually should be unfair because of the economic hardship, enslavement, and social oppression many minorities, particularly african-americans, have had to endure throughout history. In a way, it's like minorities have been forced to start late in a foot race and are now being told that the circumstances are fair as long as they are really, really fast. Affirmative action programs at least make an attempt at easing this issue, and the case or Regents v. Bakke ITALICS made the constitutionality of these programs solid. 5/5
 * Significance:**
 * Sources:**
 * Ball, H. (2000). The Bakke case: race, education, and affirmative action. Retrieved from http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/balbak.html
 * Findlaw, (1978). University of california regents v. bakke. Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=265
 * Froomkin, D. (1998, October). Affirmative action under attack. //Washington post//, Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/affirm/affirm.htm
 * (Photograph). (1977). //Protesters march around the detroit federal building during supreme court deliberations on the allan bakke case // [Web]. Retrieved from http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesontheprize/story/images/22_bakke_02.jpg

2/2

DON'T USE BULLETS IN BIBLIOGRAPHY

25/25 = 100% (A+)

EXCELLENT JOB! IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE CASE AND THE ISSUES THAT IT BROUGHT UP