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…
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
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...
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.
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 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
In the Fisher V. Texas (2016) Supreme Court Case, most of the above cases were used as a precedent to take the final decision in this particular case. According to Oyez.org, the Fisher V. Texas (2016) case started when Abigail Fisher applied to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 and was denied admission. Fisher did not qualify for the texas top ten percent plan, which I explained above, so she was not guaranteed admission, and she had to compete for the remaining spots. The university used race as one factor in the holistic review, which was purposely to ensure diversity in the student body. According to Oyez.org, “Fisher sued the University and argued that the use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
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.
More proofs of Affirmative Action in action is the admission practices at the University of California Berkeley. In the same article by Pasour, it states that while whites or Asian-Americans need at least a 3.7 grade point average through high school to be in consideration for admission in Berkeley, most minorities with much lower standards are automatically admitted. All the preferential treatment may provide a basis for employers, employees, as well as real applicable students to fight for an end to Affirmative Action. The development of more racial tensions are yet another part of the Affirmative Action policy.
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.
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,
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
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
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.
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.
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.