Research Proposal on "Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). The Medical"

Research Proposal 6 pages (2054 words) Sources: 6 Style: APA

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).

The Medical School of the University of California opened in 1968 and had a class of 100 students. When it opened, it had no admissions program for minority or disadvantaged students. At the time that it opened, it had three Asian students, but no blacks, Mexican-Americans, or Native-Americans. Over the next two years, the faculty developed a special admissions program to increase the representation of disadvantaged students, which was aimed at increasing its enrollment of minority students. Under the special admissions program, there was a special admissions committee, and candidates were asked to indicate whether they wanted to be considered as disadvantaged and/or minority applicants. The University did not formally define disadvantaged students, but those applicants who self-selected where screened by the chairman for economic or educational deprivation. Disadvantaged applicants were screened in a way that was similar to general admissions applicants, except that they did not have to meet the 2.5 minimum GPA cutoff that was applied to regular applicants. The special admissions committee presented its top choices to the general admissions committee. The general admissions committee did not compare those students against the general applicants, but could reject candidates.

Respondent Bakke was a white male who applied to the Medical School in both 1973 and 1974 under the general admissions program. In 1973, he was considered a desirable applicant and had a strong benchmark score, but no one in the general admissions program was accepted with the same score after Bakke's application was complete. Bakke wrote to the Chairman of the Admissions Committee, protesting that the special admissions program worked as a quota. When Bakke applied in 1974, he was interviewed by the Chairman, who scored him low. However, Bakke's benchmark score remained strong. His application was rejected in 1974. In both years, applicants were admitted under the special program with GPA's, MCAT scores, and benchmark scores significantly lower than Bakke's. Bakke filed suit in the Superior Court of California, seeking mandatory, injunctive, and declaratory relief compelling his admission to the Medical School. The Superior court of California enjoined the University from considering student race in admissions decisions, but failed to order them to admit Bakke as a student.

Issues: Did the admissions program of the Medical School of the University of California at Davis violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 2964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000d et seq., and the California Constitution? Was the lower court correct in enjoining the University from considering race in making admissions decisions? Should the trial court have ordered the student's admission in the University? Does a right of action for private parties exist under Title VI? Should the trial court have applied strict scrutiny to the University's admissions program?

Reasoning: Title VI's history reveals a congressional intent to halt federal funding of entities engaged in racial discrimination, and this history dealt specifically with discrimination against Africa-Americans. The Court held that "In view of the clear legislative intent, Title VI must be held to proscribe only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Fifth Amendment" 438 U.S. 265, 287. The Court held that "The guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to all persons" 238 U.S. 265, 289. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that: "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The Court held that "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. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal" 238 U.S. 265, 289-90. The Court held that, "Racial and ethnic classifications, however, are subject to stringent examination without regard to these additional characteristics" 238 U.S. 265, 290. "Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S.81, 100 (1943). "Legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny." Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944).

Analysis: The Court did not determine whether private parties had a right of action under Title VI, because it was not argued in the lower Courts, nor was the issue of whether Title VI plaintiffs had to exhaust administrative remedies. Instead, the Court assumed that Bakke had a right of action under Title Vi. 438 U.S. 265, 284. The Court held that "The special admissions program is undeniably a classification based on race and ethnic background. To the extent that there existed a pool of at least minimally qualified minority applicants to fill the 16 special admissions seats, white applicants could compete only for 84 seats in the entering class, rather than the 100 open to minority applicants. Whether this limitation is described as a quota or a goal, it is a line drawn on the basis of race and ethnic status" 438 U.S. 265, 289. The fact that Bakke was a white male did not mean that he could be discriminated against, because the Equal Protection Clause applied to all people. However, while the University's admissions program did not stand up to strict scrutiny, the state could show that it had a legitimate interest in a diverse student population, which would justify considering race in the admissions process.

Conclusion: The Court affirmed the lower court's decision determining that the University's special admissions program was unlawful. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision directing that respondent student be admitted to the Medical School. The Court concluded that the lower court's judgment enjoining the University from according any consideration to race in its admissions process must be reversed.

Citations: Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 2004, 2003.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 2003.

Background: There were several distinct challenges involved in this lawsuit, but they all shared the same basic factual background. In Gratz, petitioners Gratz and Hamacher were Caucasian residents of Michigan who were seeking admission to the University of Michigan. Though they were at or above the qualified range, they were denied early admission and ultimately denied admission. The University's Office of Undergraduate Admissions (OUA) had written guidelines governing admissions for each academic year. While these guidelines were subject to change, during all relevant periods, the University considered African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans to be underrepresented minorities and admitted virtually every qualified applicant from those groups. Under the OUA's admission guidelines, every applicant from an underrepresented racial or ethnic minority was automatically awarded 20 points of the 200 needed to guarantee admission. Petitioners filed a class action alleging that the University's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981. They filed a lawsuit seeking damages for past violations, declaratory relief, and injunction preventing future racial discrimination, and an order requiring the University to admit Hamacher as a transfer student. Hamacher's claim was found to challenge racial discrimination on a class-wide basis, and Hamacher was designated as a class representative.

In Grutter, the plaintiff was a white Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and a 162 LSAT score, who was rejected by the University of Michigan's Law School. She alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of race, because the Law School used race as a significant factor, giving applicants belonging to the underrepresented minority groups a much greater change of admission than Caucasian and Asian-American applicants with similar credentials. The Grutter and Gratz cases were heard in conjunction with one another, because they were both aimed at University of Michigan admissions policies.

Issues: Did the petitioners have standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief? Did the decision in Bakke continue to justify the consideration of race in admissions decisions? Did the University have a compelling government interest in obtaining a racially and ethnically diverse student body? Where petitioners or respondent University entitled to summary judgment?

Reasoning: The "injury in fact" necessary to establish standing in fact in an Equal Protection Clause lawsuit is the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, not the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit. Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 666. Diversity can constitute a compelling state interest. The fact that implementing a program capable of considering each applicant as an individual could present an administrative challenge does not mean that a school can employ an unconstitutional admission's program. A violation of the Equal Protection Clause violates both Title VI and § 1981. The U.S. Constitution did not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions.… READ MORE

How to Reference "Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). The Medical" Research Proposal in a Bibliography

Related Research Proposals:

Case Analysis and Comparison Research Proposal

Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), the Medical School of the University of California at Davis ran two admissions programs for the entering class of 100 students. One was a regular… read more

Research Proposal 6 pages (2013 words) Sources: 6 Style: APA Topic: Race / Ethnic Studies / Racism

---

Concept of Equal Protection Term Paper

Equal Protection

The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in race relations in the United States. It began by supporting the institution of slavery, going so far as to… read more

Term Paper 10 pages (4130 words) Sources: 12 Style: MLA Topic: American History / United States

---

How Is the U.S. Army Utilizing the Human Resource Model Today? Term Paper

U.S. Army Utilizing the Human Resource Model Today

A human resource model is a performance framework that oversees conduction of tasks from an efficient point-of-view with the intention of attaining… read more

Term Paper 7 pages (2504 words) Sources: 7 Style: MLA Topic: Military / Army / Navy / Marines

---

U.S. Federal Policy on Abortion United States Essay

U.S. federal policy on abortion

United States Federal Policy on Abortion

In understanding the workings of the United States federal government, it is critical to have an understanding of the… read more

Essay 2 pages (661 words) Sources: 3 Topic: Abortion / Pro-Life / Pro-Choice

---

U.S. Intelligence Revolution Term Paper

U.S. Intelligence Revolution

The transformations that occurred in the intelligence field after the Second World War and during the Cold War brought up what can be called an intelligence revolution… read more

Term Paper 7 pages (2090 words) Sources: 5 Style: Turabian Topic: World History

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>