Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Regents of the University of California V. Bakke

No description

Emily Cano

on 13 December 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Regents of the University of California V. Bakke

Chief Justice
Public Opinion
Case Facts
Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man.

Applied twice for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis.

Bakke was rejected both times.

His MCAT score was low for the regular Caucasian application but Bakke's college GPA and test scores exceeded those of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected.

Bakke decided to sue the University. He first went to the California courts, then to the Supreme Court.

Blakke claimed that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race

History/ Background
Regents of the University of California V. Bakke
The Washington Post: "Affirmative Action Upheld"
The Wall Street Journal:"The Decision Everybody Won"
Attorney General Griffin Bell: stated, "my general view is that affirmative action has been enhanced", and that such programs in the federal government would continue as planned.
Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Tribe :wrote, "the Court thus upheld the kind of affirmative action plan used by most American colleges and universities, and disallowed only the unusually mechanical—some would say unusually candid, others would say unusually impolitic—approach taken by the Medical School" of U.C.-Davis.

Votes for Bakke
Votes Against
No Single Majority Opinion
Warren E. Burger: 15th Chief Justice of the United States from 1969 to 1986.
The court ordered Bakke's admission to the medical school of the University of California at Davis. However that did not stop the school from considering race as a component in future admissions decisions.

In the words of Justice Powell “the guarantee of Equal Protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.”
In other words the quota system at Davis discriminated against racial groups.

The school's admission policy also violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which states "the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy" .

-Due to the ruling of this case
racial quotas are now banned
in public universities and other government institutions.
Although race can still be
considered as a factor when
deciding admissions.

The Medical School of the University of California at Davis had two admissions programs, the regular admissions program and the special admissions program. Unlike the candidates of the regular admissions program, candidates of the special admissions program did not have to meet the 2.5 grade point cutoff and were not ranked against candidates in the general admissions process
There were 16 spots out of the 100 for these minority applicants.

Although the Supreme Court had outlawed segregation in schools, and had even ordered school districts to take steps to assure integration, the question of the legality of voluntary affirmative action programs by universities was unresolved. Advocates for affirmative action believed such programs were necessary to make up for past discrimination, while opponents believed they were illegal and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Emily Cano
Amber Alvarez
Angie Chavarri
Full transcript