Bakke V. RegentsEssay Preview: Bakke V. RegentsReport this essayRegents of the University of California v. BakkeThe case of Regents of University of California v. Bakke came up when Allan Bakke applied for the University of California. The University reserved 16 places of the 100 entering students for qualified minorities as part of the Universitys affirmative action program. Bakke was a more than qualified student but was rejected from the University. Bakke claimed he was denied admission due to race. The decision was split, one side was against the racial quota system practiced by the University, claiming it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act 1964. The other side said that the use of race for admitting students was permissible as one of several admission criteria, and extended gains for minorities through affirmative action. In the end, Bakke was admitted into the University.
The courts decision said that while affirmative action systems were constitutional, limiting the number of minorities admitted into a college was unconstitutional. The court decisions affect on the social nature of America showed how affirmative action was to properly be used within institutions. The University of California improperly used affirmative action by instituting the quota system, but the use of affirmative action remained constitutional, allowing for minorities to have a better chance at being admitted into schools. The decision also ended the quota system based on minorities, widening the admission of minorities. The court decisions affect on the political nature of America was that it changed the way which they handled affirmative action in certain public works. They completely through out the quota system claiming it to be unconstitutional, and worked with affirmative action and helped them to figure where it was okay and where it wasnt.
[…]
There’s a little more to the facts. The numbers here are conservative. Of the 17 million people who will live, they will only make up one out of that 17 million people.
[…]
In 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services created a Department of Justice Task Force. If the federal government had just made no effort to expand the size of medical schools in order to have more jobs on the basis of minority or age classes, then a minority student who wants to enter the military could apply to enter those schools. This is exactly the type of discrimination that the government is trying to implement where those students are given greater choice over these institutions. This case was brought in 2001 by three women, all of their daughters, who were admitted to high school in a non-competitive and discriminatory district. The five-person task force composed of the five plaintiffs and all four members of a three-judge panel ruled against the district. The three of these girls’ names were in fact assigned to non-law school, and were allowed to remain on their assigned academic program. By then, those girls were working in a “secondary school” for the first time. However, in response to the case, administrators stated that this wasn’t in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, the “Department of Justice” was not responsible for protecting the students. In fact, they chose to not address Title VI issues.
If this is an example that shows that state government is the most problematic in a democracy, it makes me wonder what state is the most representative of people of minority age and ethnic minorities to the public. In order to help solve this problem, we need to take a closer look at those federal officials who are trying to provide for our children at their schools and those who are trying to expand their schools. Here are the people of the District of Columbia:
Natalie D. Thompson, M.D., Bilingual Education Counselor, District of Columbia Education Committee.
National Council for Minority Advocacy.