Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Read a random definition: raptu virginum

A quick definition of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978):

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was a court case in 1978 where a man named Bakke applied to medical school but was rejected because of a racial quota system. The court decided that this system was unfair and violated the law. They said that it's wrong to only consider someone's race when deciding if they can go to school. The court also said that having a diverse group of students is important, but there are other ways to achieve this without using a racial quota system.

A more thorough explanation:

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke is a 1978 Supreme Court case that dealt with a university's use of race in its admissions criteria. The Court held that using race as a definite and exclusive basis for an admission decision violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

For example, Bakke was a white male who applied to medical school at the University California at Davis. Although his admissions score was well above that of the average admittee and the school had open slots when he applied, his application was rejected because of the school's racial quota system. Previously, the school implemented a quota system where white applicants could only compete for 84 out of 100 spots, and the remaining 16 were reserved for racial minorities. Bakke sued the school, arguing that the clear-cut racial quota system was unconstitutional and a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Court held that these admission criteria violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court applied strict scrutiny, reasoning that the Equal Protection Clause requires that a government have a compelling interest with narrowly tailored means to blatantly base their actions on race alone, as was the case here. In so reasoning, the court extends the heightened scrutiny on race discrimination to all races and does not limit it to the protection of racial minorities.

The medical school argued that their racial quota system served a compelling government interest by remedying the traditional underrepresentation of minorities in the medical profession and that the diversity in the classroom enhances the free exchange of ideas. The Court rejected the University's arguments though, finding that there are other ways to achieve representation of traditionally underrepresented groups and classroom diversity without a blatant racial quota system.

In summary, the case established that a quota system which excludes candidates because of their race alone is racial discrimination and that the University did not have a compelling reason with reasonably tailored means to overcome the constitutional standard of strict scrutiny.

refugee | Register

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
21:15
Feel like I can finally stop holding my breath!! Whew!!!
[] baddestbunny
22:16
every time I get accosted by a strange man who follows me around because my male coworkers were too busy talking to walk me back to my car I get closer to saying we need to bring back traditional gender roles
Dkk
22:32
Nice! @Macaque
Dkk
22:32
@Aromatic, Have to guess.
Dkk
22:33
That sucks @Bunny do you have to go to the hospital?
[] baddestbunny
22:40
I said accosted not assaulted
23:35
guys. my notre dame address just went long is this good or bad
1a2b3c4d26z
23:37
Oooooo me too
23:37
omg is this good or bad
Dkk
23:47
Idk if gender roles are gunna fix that then.
23:49
it looks like most people who applied in october last cycle didn't get a decision until january... does it even mean anything that our addresses went long??
hows ED 2 compared to ED 1?
Dkk
0:10
No idea
windyMagician
0:34
reporting live to say my ndls address also went long
does it mean anything ^
Dkk
2:21
NDLS and Fordham took a very long time last year. It's good info for people to know.
[] baddestbunny
4:29
let’s get after it boys and girls
Dkk
5:21
I gtg to bed soon.
Dkk
5:22
Big day today. Gunna be a crazy one. I will sleep through the first half.
good morning lsd it is 5 am EST
also jazzy my ndls address went long ages ago i sadly do not think it means anything
my stanford address also went long LOL i think at most it's an indicator it's under review
WorthlessAttractiveZombie
7:44
My berkeley paragraph finally disappeared. I definitely think it is just an indicator that they are actively reviewing files, and does not mean anything about A, WL, or Rs
WorthlessAttractiveZombie
7:46
Also has anyone's date disappeared for W&L? Mine did last night
7:55
@WorthlessAttractiveZombie: mine did yesterday morning
7:56
Oops sorry I meant Vilanova. Mine disappeared last week
soapy
8:48
UMN under review! As predicted, decisions are gonna come out early December
Minus those random R decisions from UMN yesterday though right? I wonder what happened there. I don’t think I’ve seen a school start the season out with anything but As on here
almost all of my apps have been UR for 6 weeks at this point I feel exhausted waiting for them to finish
Irvine is being snobby and wont start any review until end of Nov.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.