Regents of the University of California v. Bakke is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 29, 2016. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on June 28, 2004, June 28, 2005, June 28, 2006, June 28, 2018, and June 28, 2022. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The quote attributed to Justice Powell--"a properly tailored affirmative action program designed to promote diversity could survive strict judicial scrutiny"--appears in no opinion for this case and is not cited in this article. A Google search shows what look like pages reproduced from and references to Wikipedia. The addition appears 10 June 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.119.168 ( talk) 17:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this snippet relevant to the case at hand? "[Bakke's] lowest score of 86 was from Dr. Lowrey who found Bakke was "rather limited in his approach" to the problems of the medical profession and stated Bakke's "very definite opinions which were based more on his personal viewpoints than upon a study of the total problem" were disturbing." Nothing more is ever stated about this... -- Xanadu 18:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Also...is the "Post-decision" section discussing one former student's malpractice relevant? It's intended to lead the reader to the conclusion that none of the black students were qualified to enter medical school, but using one individual's story to discredit the qualifications of an entire class of people is illogical. And besides that...how is that event related to the outcome of the case?
To clarify the POV claim made by User:Twp: unlike a previous edit by User:130.165.200.100, who described the Court as having "twisted logic" in their decision, I am not including my own POVs in this article - the truth of the matter is, and those on the far left will even acknowledge it, that qualified and competent white students are often denied admission to universities today as a result of this case which legalized affirmative action, myself being one of them. Sebastian Prospero 19:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
In order to apply to the school, an applicant had to have a minimum of over 2.5.
I assume the article is referring to GPA, but either way it needs clarification.
The article states the decision was 6-2, and later states it was 5-4. I assume the decision was actually 5-4 because of the list of justices for and against, and because that adds to 9 justices. Furthermore the only sites i could find which mentioned a 6-2 decision in this case were wikipedia mirrors. 24.19.194.18
Does this ruling pertain to all college and university admissions, or only those of public institutions?-- Pharos 03:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The article states: "It bars quota systems in college admissions but affirms the constitutionality of affirmative action programs giving equal access to minorities."
As far as I know, the case did not affirm the constitutionality of affirmative action programs; the majority opinion discussed possible kinds of affirmative action programs and said that those that take factors other than just race into account, such as Harvard's, (which Powell described,) were fine, but that affirmative action programs based solely on race were unconstitutional. Can anyone clarify this point? Thinkgood ( talk) 08:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your analysis that by not declaring all affirmative action programs unconstitutional, it affirms the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. The Stevens plurality opinion, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justices Stewart and Rehnquist made it clear that they did not consider whether race could ever be a factor an issue in this case and thus did not opine on that. The other plurality opinion of Brennan, White, Marshall and Blackmun expressed that race could be used as a basis for admissions, i.e., people could be excluded just because of their race, if it was to remedy some form of chronic discrimination. That is a 4-4 split on the issue of whether race could be the basis for consideration for admission. Only Powell alone said that race could not be the basis but it could be a factor but only for the purpose of diversity in the classroom. In other words the Supreme Court did not rule in Bakke one way or another on affirmative action programs. Not ruling against something is not the same as affirming something. It just means that the Court hasn't ruled one way or the other and technically down the road all affirmative action programs could be held unconstitutional, some could be held unconstitutional or affirmative action programs could be constitutional as long as they met some stated criteria.
It is true that subsequently lower courts seized on Powell's view -- that race could not be a Basis to exclude but it could be a factor in achieving diversity in the learning environment. But that is just the custom of lower courts to follow the compromise opinion (which Powell's was) when there is no clearcut majority . It was until decades later in Grutter that the Supreme Court finally affirmed the lone 1978 view of Powell's.
I just did a major edit of the analysis of the decision. But I neglected to summarize its nature before posting. Is it possible to put that in after the fact? Justitia Pax ( talk) 04:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justitia Pax ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I tend to take Wikipedia's accuracy for granted and only just joined as a member when I read this and said, "Hey, that doesn't sound quite right."
So essentially speaking, this case did NOT affirm the constitutionality of affirmative action; it left it open ended. Is there any way that we can edit that into the article? I think that it's misleading to say that this case affirmed the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. Thinkgood ( talk) 07:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, as above I have to disagree with you. I have the Bakke case here right in front of me (I am reading ti for an article I am writing myself) and what I wrote above and in my revision on the decision on Wikipedia is accurate. Though it is true that subsequent judicial decisions took Powell's lone approach that race could be a factor for the specific purpose of diversity in the classroom-- the Bakke case itself did not rule on that -- Only Powell opined that view. Justitia Pax ( talk) 05:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I was referencing this article for some research, and it would appear that some form of vandalism has rendered this page nigh unto totally useless and empty of helpful information. In the history I can see that it used to be a good article, but I don't know enough (am not confident enough) to change anything back, and I wouldn't know what version to put in place. I'm looking for some help or advice on how to put this back to being a decent page worth visiting... BlueLily91 ( talk) 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
okay, maybe this doesn't need to be in here, but what about the Superior Court of Yolo County who first heard the case and decided that the University of California's special admissions program was unconstitutional but did not demand Bakke's entrance since Bakke could not prove that he would not have been admitted had there not been such a program (the Supreme Court of California and the United States Supreme Court looked at the flip side of this and demanded Bakke's admission since the U. of Cal. could not prove that Bakke would not have been admitted had there not been a special admissions program). and the judges didn't seem so much divided amongst each others but rather, divided in themselves. for instance, Justice Powell wrote the opinion deciding that the U. of California's special admissions program was unconstitutional but that race could be considered one of a variety of factors when considering applicants. there was a concurring opinion signed by three justices that also partially dissented. AND, there was the dissenting opinion which also partly concurred and was signed by Justice Powell (rather interesting to have the writer of the majority opinion sign the dissenting opinion as well). oh, and another justice (Stevens, i think) wrote his own opinion). my point is that the justices seemed rather at odds with this case and were not so rigidly decisive as the article suggests. perhaps this has no place in a wikipedia article--i jus thought that the article wasn't capturing what this case is really about and how it was handled. sodakota22 ( talk) 7:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.216.157 ( talk)
A bunch of IP editors came around and blanked several sections, and a few of them blatantly vandalized as well. I removed the vandalism, but some sections are still blanked, just giving people a heads-up if they want to look at the edit history. 71.113.26.19 ( talk) 03:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
BAKKE & THE POLITICS OF EQUALITY: Friends and Foes in the Classroom of Litigation, Timothy J. O’Neill, Wesleyan University Press (Connecticut), distributed by Harper & Row, 1985, pages 20-60.
Bakke was rejected by UC Davis and ten other medical schools he applied to.
page 22:
‘ . . . Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) . . . ninety-seventh percentile in scientific knowledge, ninety-sixth in verbal ability, and ninety-fourth in quantitative analysis. He ranked in the seventy-second percentile in general knowledge. His statement of purpose was articulate and his letters of recommendation were strong. In March of 1973 Bakke was invited for an interview. The faculty member who conducted the interview described him as “a well-qualified candidate for admission whose main hardship is the unavoidable fact that he is now 33. . . . [ellipses in book] On the grounds of motivation, academic records, potential promise, endorsement by persons capable of reasonable judgments, personal appearance and decorum, maturity, and probable contribution to balance in the class, I believe Mr. Bakke must be considered as a very desirable applicant and I shall so recommend him.”[4] . . ’
4. Report of Dr. Theodore West to the Davis medical school admissions committee, quoted in the Record of the lower court’s findings (in Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Yolo, Super. Crt. No. 31287 (1974). [Herafter cited as Bakke (Yolo Cty, Calif., Superior Ct)]) on file with the Office of the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court, pp. 224-25.
page 22:
“In March of 1973 Bakke was invited for an interview. . .
“ . . . However, despite 468 points out of a possible 500 on the admissions committee’s rating scale, Bakke was not admitted. Bakke completed his application late because his mother was ill. Earlier in the year, a rating of 470 had won “automatic admission” with some promising applicants being admitted with lower scores.[5] But by March the number of remaining slots were few, and Bakke received notice of his rejection on May 14, 1973. . . ”
5. Robert Lindsey, “White/Caucasian—And Rejected,” New York Times Magazine, April 3, 1977, p. 44. Unfortunately, there are no specific figures indicating how many applicants with scores lower than 470 were admitted in 1973. Neither the court record nor any of the briefs contain this information, and the Davis medical school admissions office refused to publish this data.
pages 23-24:
[Assistant Dean Peter C. Storandt]
‘Storandt “told Bakke his candidacy had come close and urged him to reapply. If he were not accepted, he could then research the legal question. He had been a good candidate. I thought he’d be accepted and that would end the matter.”[8]
‘Storandt gave Bakke the names of two lawyers who were interested in the issue of affirmative action. The candor of his advice to Bakke led several groups later to charge collusion between Bakke and the university. Ralph Smith, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and chairman of the National Conference of Black Lawyers’ Task Force on Legal Education and Bar Admissions insisted that “Allan Bakke was virtually invited to sue the U.C. Davis Medical School by a University official.” Smith concluded that it was the university, not Bakke, “who is opposed to minority admissions programs.”[9] The general counsel for the University of California, Donald L. Reidhaar, called such charges “ridiculous.”[10] He later said, “I don’t think Storandt meant to injure the university. It’s simply an example of a non-lawyer advising on legal matters.”[11] Storandt agreed, “I simply gave Allan the response you’d give an irate customer, to try and cool his anger. I realized the university might be vulnerable to legal attack because of its quota, and I had the feeling by then that somebody somewhere would sue the school, but I surely didn’t know this would be the case.”[12] Whatever the truth behind the charges of collusion, Storandt was demoted and later resigned to accept a position as associate dean of admissions at Oberlin College.[13]’
8. Quoted in Carol Benfell, “Should the Constitution Really be Colorblind?”, Barrister 4 (Fall 1977), pp. 52-53.
9. Ralph Smith, “Examining the Merits of the Bakke Case,” The Daily Pennsylvanian (the student newspaper of the University of Pennsylvania), March 4, 1977, p. 4. The letters exchanged between Bakke and Storandt are reprinted in Appendix A, “Brief of Amici Curiae for the National Urban League, et al., on Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of California,” pp 1a-8a.
10. Quoted in “The Furor Over Reverse Discrimination,” Newsweek, September 26, 1977, p. 54.
11. Quoted in Benfell, “Should the Constitution Really be Colorblind?,” p. 17.
12. Ibid., pp. 53-54.
13. See Ibid., p. 17, and letter from Peter Storandt to Newsweek, November 14, 1977, p. 6.
See also . . .
Supreme Court Milestones, The Bakke Case: Challenging affirmative action, Rebecca Stefoff, 2006, page 71.
Bakke: A Man Driven To Become a Doctor, Robert Lindsey (New York Times News Service), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 29, 1978, page 8.
“ . . . The letter was answered by Storandt, who was then the manager of medical school admissions at Davis and is now an admissions officer at Yale University. Storandt sympathized with Bakke and tacitly encouraged him to challenge the minority preference program in court.
“When Bakke again submitted an application at Davis in the summer of 1973, it was rejected again, and there is evidence in the files of the university that his complaints were considered in this decision at least as much as his grades and test scores. . . ”
pages 24-25:
[Chair of Admissions Committee Dr. George H. Lowrey]
‘In a letter to Storandt dated August 7, 1973, Bakke outlined his plan. He would reapply to Davis under an early admissions program. He would simultaneously prepare to sue Davis, Stanford Universtiy Medical School, or the University of California Medical School at San Francisco, should he fail in his second application.[14] Having reapplied, Bakke was again invited for an interview. The student interviewer described Bakke as “friendly, well-tempered, conscientious and delightful to speak with,” and concluded, “I would give him a sound recommendation for [a] medical career.”[15] The faculty interviewerer was less enthusiastic. The chairman of the admissions committee, Dr. George H. Lowrey, decided to interview Bakke himself. He found Bakke “disturbing,” noting, “[H]e had very definite opinions which were based more on his personal viewpoint than upon the total problem. He was very unsympathetic to the concept of recruiting minority students so that they hopefully would go back to practice in the neglected areas of the country. . . . [ellipses in book] My own impression of Mr. Bakke is that he is a rather rigidly oriented young man who has a tendency to arrive at conclusions based more upon his personal impressions than upon thoughtful processes using available sources of information.”[16] None of the parties in the lawsuit nor the organizations filing amicus curiae briefs, save one, explored the First Amendment and due process issues raised by Lowrey’s interviewing of Bakke, and that one did so only in passing.[17]
‘Using a newly expanded rating system, the five members of the committee gave Bakke scores of 96, 94, 92, 87, and 86 out of a possible 100 points. Storandt gave Bakke the 92; the student member gave him the 94; the lowest rating, 86, came from Lowrey. Bakke received an aggregate score of 549 out of a possible 600 and was denied admission for a second time.[18] His attorneys would later argue that, despite the fact that Bakke’s grade point average and performance on the MCAT were higher than those of the average regular admittee [Emphasis added], Lowrey had intentionally “penalize[d]” Bakke for challenging the special admissions program by “downgrading” his interview score. This was enough, his attorneys asserted, to make the difference between acceptance or rejection by the school.[19]’
14. Letter from Allan Bakke to Peter C. Storandt, August 7, 1973, reproduced in “Brief of Amici Curiae for the National Urban League, et al.” Bakke (U.S. Supr. Ct.), pp. 4a-6a.
15. Record, Bakke (Yolo County, Calif., Superior Ct.), pp. 228-29.
16. Ibid., pp. 225-26.
17. “To the extent Bakke’s second rejection was predicated upon his political opposition to the University’s special admissions project, the rejection raises serious First Amendment questions” (“Brief of the American Jewish Committee, et al., Amici Curiae”, Bakke (U.S. Supr. Ct.), p. 8 n. 5).
18. “Brief for Respondent,” Bakke (U.S. Supr. Ct.), pp. 9 and 13.
19. “Brief of Plaintiff, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant,” Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, 553 P. 2d 1152 (1976), p. 41. [This case hereafter cited as Bakke (Calif. Supr. Ct.)].
I would agree with you, FriendlyRiverOtter, that 33 seems to be an ideal age to start becoming a doctor -- however, ageism (as well as sexism and racism) were quite strong back then. Being anything over 25 was considered "old", particularly to start something as rigorous as medical school. It was virtually impossible to get admitted to med school after that age (and it was as equally impossible to get admitted if you were a woman -- regardless of your age.) Another example of the "ageist" attitudes back then -- a woman who was having her first child after the age of 29 was labeled by the medical profession as an "elderly primigravida." (BTW -- I am also Justitia Pax -- I couldn't remember my user name when I made the edits discussed above.) Justitia1 ( talk) 09:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
See also . . .
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4095
pages 26-27:
‘The trial record indicated that while 272 whites considered by Davis as disadvantaged had applied to the program during the years 1971 to 1974, none had been accepted under the special admissions rationale. It is not clear whether disadvantaged white applicants had been interviewed by the task force. Dr. Lowrey said no;[23] a member of the committee asserted that they had been.[24]’
23. Record, Bakke (Yolo County, Calif., Superior Ct.), pp. 64-66, 86, 168, 195-96, 201-33, 388.
24. Letter to the editor of the Sacramento Bee from Dr. Sarah D. Grey, past Task Force Chairperson, January 4, 1977, reproduced in Appendix B, “Brief of Amici Curiae for the National Urban League, et al.,” p. 10a.
page 21:
‘ . . . joined the Marine Corps to fulfill his Naval ROTC obligation. Bakke served four years with the corps. During seven months service as a commanding officer of an antiaircraft battery in Vietnam, he first began to think about attending medical school.[1] He was honorably discharged with the rank of captain . . . [2]’
1. “Brief for Respondent,” p. 3, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). [This case hereafter cited as Bakke (U.S. Supr. Ct.).]
2. Robert Lindsey, “White/Caucasian—And Rejected,” New York Times Magazine, April 3, 1977, p. 43.
page 27:
‘ . . . Occasionally, exceptions to this rank-ordering process were made for veterans and applicants with unusual records.[25]
25. Record, Bakke (Yolo County, Calif., Superior Ct.), pp. 62-63, 150-59.
page 27:
The Los Angeles Times also reported that the medical school dean intervened on behalf of the sons and daughters of the university’s “special friends” to improve their admissions chances.[26] . . ’
26. “Medical Dean Aids ‘Special Interest’ Applicants,” Los Angeles Times, July 5, 1976, pp. 1, 3
Supreme Court Milestones, The Bakke Case: Challenging affirmative action, Rebecca Stefoff, 2006, page 11:
“ . . . Before the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 became law in 1979, medical schools openly favored younger applicants over older ones. . . ”
America in Black and White, Stephan Thernstrom, Abigail Thernstrom, a Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster, 1997.
" . . . By the time he applied to the medical school at the Universtiy of California at Davis in 1973, he was in his early thirties, and his age was a serious handicap. (Professional schools in the days before the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 seldom trained students who had been out of college for more than a few years.) On the other hand, Bakke's credentials were excellent. His grade record was stronger than that of most regular admittees, and his MCAT scores were much better. . . "
No Merit System Is Fully Objective, Ellen Goodman, Editorial, Milwaukee Sentinel, Sept. 24, 1977, page 13.
“ . . . Now, it’s always seemed to me that Bakke had a better case for age discrimination than race. At 32, he was rejected by 13 medical schools, not one. . . ”
Court decides in favor of Bakke, Deseret News [Salt Lake City], Washington (UPI), June 28, 1978, 1A (above the fold), 12A:
‘The Supreme Court ruled today Allan Bakke must be admitted to the University of California . . . ’
‘ . . . Bakke, a 38-year-old white engineer . . . ’
‘ . . . UC Davis, under an affirmative action admissions program, had set aside 16 of 100 openings for minority applicants . . . ’
‘ . . . It took the justices more than one hour to read their six separate opinions . . . ’
‘ . . . in forming a new program the school may use race as a factor. . . ’
‘ . . . Justice Lewis Powell, writing the swing opinion, said California courts in barring consideration of race in admissions programs “failed to recognize that the state has a substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions program involving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin.”’
‘And Brennan, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun joined to say the decision “affirms the constitutional power of federal and state government to act affirmatively to achieve equal opportunity for all.”
‘Powell said the Davis program was unconstitutional and Bakke’s admission must be upheld because after the California courts had ruled in his favor, the university conceded it could not prove Bakke still would have been barred had there been no minority program.
‘Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart and William Rehnquist said the program violated a section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which bars discrimination in federally funded programs. . . ’
Court Orders Medical School Admit Bakke, Nashua Telegraph [New Hampshire], Washington (AP), June 28, 1978, page 2:
“The Supreme Court today ordered a California medical school to admit Allan Bakke, deciding that the school had illegally discriminated against him because he is white.
“The court, in a splintered decision that yielded six separated opinions, ruled that the University of California’s medical school at Davis is not barred from taking race into account in a future admissions program. . . ”
The Gazette, (Montreal), “Bakke and blacks both win,” Editorial, page 6, June 29, 1978:
‘ . . . the U.S. Supreme Court has come up with a brilliant solution. It ruled that Mr. Bakke must be admitted to the medical school that rejected him, but at the same time it upheld the constitutionality of “affirmative action” programs. . . ’
‘ . . . The vote was 5-to-4 for Mr. Bakke and 5-to-4 for affirmative action, though it was not the same five in both instances. Altogether there were six decisions as the justices felt their way through this prickly legal and social thicket. . . ’
‘ . . . The problem of reconciling equality of opportunity for individuals with remedial justice for minorities is one face by any society in Canada with linguistic groups and native peoples no less than in the United States. . . ’
‘ . . . It was not what the medical school was trying to do that was intolerable: it was the way that it did it – reserving 16 per cent of its places for minority applicants. Justice Lewis Powell pointedly contrasted the University of California policy with that at Harvard, where race or ethnic background can be a “plus” for an individual without insulating him “from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats.” . . ’
‘ . . . And Allan Bakke, who five years ago was judged by an interviewer to be facing his “last chance” because of his age, then 33, will be getting his first.’
Our article currently reads: "Blacks," "Chicanos," "Asians," and "American Indians", with the quotation marks in the article. Maybe a writer is trying to make a point that such groups are largely artificial and we're all human beings afterall. If so, there are plenty of critics and commentators making this and similar points. It would be better for an encyclopedia to use one of these quotes.
And, this is just plain unusual writing, and I'm not sure an encyclopedia is the best place to experiment with unusual writing.
So, I'm planning to go ahead and remove the quotation marks. And, as always, open offer. I think the article can use a fair amount of help. If this is a topic that interests you, please, jump in and help out. :>) FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 17:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Dec. 12, 1978.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=s4RQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-RIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5747,3002765&dq=bakke+mother&hl=en
http://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2060/Issue%203/phillips.pdf
http://www.stetson.edu/law/conferences/highered/archive/2004/Discrimination.pdf <-- a seemingly good summary by the general counsel of Brown University, but then, I am not a lawyer. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 22:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/research/liu3.pdf
Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice, Lee Epstein, Thomas G. Walker, CQ Press (SAGE Publications, Inc), 2013, page 692. See chart at bottom of page.
I think we should model the article after FAs which are about Supreme Court cases, such as this.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 02:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this one. Comments in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I only made it through the lead tonight and glanced at the rest, but my first impression is that this looks quite good. Shouldn't be much to do before passing. Will finish tomorrow, hopefully. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I've made it through the first pass of the article, and this looks solid. It covers the main aspects (I double-checked it against the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution entry), is well-referenced, and neutral. Only a few minor action points above, and I'll proceed to the checklist. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Comparison to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002104.html and other sources suggests main aspects are covered. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | N/A | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | N/A | |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
Is there some Wikipedia precedent for abbreviating the university as "U.C.-Davis"? This particular style is never used in any official university capacity, nor can I recall seeing it colloquially outside of this site. The proper styling as per the University style guide is "UC Davis".
http://marketingtoolbox.ucdavis.edu/writing/editorial-style-guide/u.html
University of California, Davis. Set off “Davis” by two commas: the University of California, Davis, was chosen. “UC Davis” is used in second and subsequent references in news releases and in publications. Do not use “UCD.” Use no periods in UC. Never say the University of California at Davis.
PxT ( talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
One of the people admitted to medical school instead of Bakke ended up having his medical license revoked. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/15/us/patrick-chavis-50-affirmative-action-figure.html PapayaSF ( talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
How about this pop culture perspective= There was an old National Lampoon LTE that I recite as an example of NOT funny,
Dear editors, I wrote a song. It’s called “HaHa Negroes”
HaHa negroes, HaHa negroes, I’m a doctor now. s/ Allan Bakke
I can find the back numbers if asked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C890:7210:B009:6808:C27E:DB88 ( talk) 18:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
The artile says "Allan Paul Bakke (born 1940),[19] a 35-year-old white male, applied to twelve medical schools in 1973", which doesn't make sense. When was he born? -- OhNoPeedyPeebles ( talk) 17:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Add as first sentence in first paragraph in 'Powell's Opinion' section acknowledging the emphasis on the First Amendment in the diversity rationale of the opinion: " Justice Powell based a significant portion of his diversity rationale in the decision on the First Amendment, which has been significantly emphasized by later scholars. [1] [2]
Cf2022 ( talk) 09:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022
References
There are five images used in this article and three of them depict or relate to anti-Bakke protests. The fact that there are three seems redundant enough for such a relatively brief article -- the flyer is especially unnecessary -- but it also seems to insinuate an NPOV slant toward opposition to the court's decision. I think the image selection should be reconsidered. 2600:8801:710D:EA00:ED4C:E1FF:500F:7399 ( talk) 04:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 29, 2016. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on June 28, 2004, June 28, 2005, June 28, 2006, June 28, 2018, and June 28, 2022. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The quote attributed to Justice Powell--"a properly tailored affirmative action program designed to promote diversity could survive strict judicial scrutiny"--appears in no opinion for this case and is not cited in this article. A Google search shows what look like pages reproduced from and references to Wikipedia. The addition appears 10 June 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.119.168 ( talk) 17:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this snippet relevant to the case at hand? "[Bakke's] lowest score of 86 was from Dr. Lowrey who found Bakke was "rather limited in his approach" to the problems of the medical profession and stated Bakke's "very definite opinions which were based more on his personal viewpoints than upon a study of the total problem" were disturbing." Nothing more is ever stated about this... -- Xanadu 18:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Also...is the "Post-decision" section discussing one former student's malpractice relevant? It's intended to lead the reader to the conclusion that none of the black students were qualified to enter medical school, but using one individual's story to discredit the qualifications of an entire class of people is illogical. And besides that...how is that event related to the outcome of the case?
To clarify the POV claim made by User:Twp: unlike a previous edit by User:130.165.200.100, who described the Court as having "twisted logic" in their decision, I am not including my own POVs in this article - the truth of the matter is, and those on the far left will even acknowledge it, that qualified and competent white students are often denied admission to universities today as a result of this case which legalized affirmative action, myself being one of them. Sebastian Prospero 19:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
In order to apply to the school, an applicant had to have a minimum of over 2.5.
I assume the article is referring to GPA, but either way it needs clarification.
The article states the decision was 6-2, and later states it was 5-4. I assume the decision was actually 5-4 because of the list of justices for and against, and because that adds to 9 justices. Furthermore the only sites i could find which mentioned a 6-2 decision in this case were wikipedia mirrors. 24.19.194.18
Does this ruling pertain to all college and university admissions, or only those of public institutions?-- Pharos 03:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The article states: "It bars quota systems in college admissions but affirms the constitutionality of affirmative action programs giving equal access to minorities."
As far as I know, the case did not affirm the constitutionality of affirmative action programs; the majority opinion discussed possible kinds of affirmative action programs and said that those that take factors other than just race into account, such as Harvard's, (which Powell described,) were fine, but that affirmative action programs based solely on race were unconstitutional. Can anyone clarify this point? Thinkgood ( talk) 08:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your analysis that by not declaring all affirmative action programs unconstitutional, it affirms the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. The Stevens plurality opinion, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justices Stewart and Rehnquist made it clear that they did not consider whether race could ever be a factor an issue in this case and thus did not opine on that. The other plurality opinion of Brennan, White, Marshall and Blackmun expressed that race could be used as a basis for admissions, i.e., people could be excluded just because of their race, if it was to remedy some form of chronic discrimination. That is a 4-4 split on the issue of whether race could be the basis for consideration for admission. Only Powell alone said that race could not be the basis but it could be a factor but only for the purpose of diversity in the classroom. In other words the Supreme Court did not rule in Bakke one way or another on affirmative action programs. Not ruling against something is not the same as affirming something. It just means that the Court hasn't ruled one way or the other and technically down the road all affirmative action programs could be held unconstitutional, some could be held unconstitutional or affirmative action programs could be constitutional as long as they met some stated criteria.
It is true that subsequently lower courts seized on Powell's view -- that race could not be a Basis to exclude but it could be a factor in achieving diversity in the learning environment. But that is just the custom of lower courts to follow the compromise opinion (which Powell's was) when there is no clearcut majority . It was until decades later in Grutter that the Supreme Court finally affirmed the lone 1978 view of Powell's.
I just did a major edit of the analysis of the decision. But I neglected to summarize its nature before posting. Is it possible to put that in after the fact? Justitia Pax ( talk) 04:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justitia Pax ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I tend to take Wikipedia's accuracy for granted and only just joined as a member when I read this and said, "Hey, that doesn't sound quite right."
So essentially speaking, this case did NOT affirm the constitutionality of affirmative action; it left it open ended. Is there any way that we can edit that into the article? I think that it's misleading to say that this case affirmed the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. Thinkgood ( talk) 07:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, as above I have to disagree with you. I have the Bakke case here right in front of me (I am reading ti for an article I am writing myself) and what I wrote above and in my revision on the decision on Wikipedia is accurate. Though it is true that subsequent judicial decisions took Powell's lone approach that race could be a factor for the specific purpose of diversity in the classroom-- the Bakke case itself did not rule on that -- Only Powell opined that view. Justitia Pax ( talk) 05:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I was referencing this article for some research, and it would appear that some form of vandalism has rendered this page nigh unto totally useless and empty of helpful information. In the history I can see that it used to be a good article, but I don't know enough (am not confident enough) to change anything back, and I wouldn't know what version to put in place. I'm looking for some help or advice on how to put this back to being a decent page worth visiting... BlueLily91 ( talk) 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
okay, maybe this doesn't need to be in here, but what about the Superior Court of Yolo County who first heard the case and decided that the University of California's special admissions program was unconstitutional but did not demand Bakke's entrance since Bakke could not prove that he would not have been admitted had there not been such a program (the Supreme Court of California and the United States Supreme Court looked at the flip side of this and demanded Bakke's admission since the U. of Cal. could not prove that Bakke would not have been admitted had there not been a special admissions program). and the judges didn't seem so much divided amongst each others but rather, divided in themselves. for instance, Justice Powell wrote the opinion deciding that the U. of California's special admissions program was unconstitutional but that race could be considered one of a variety of factors when considering applicants. there was a concurring opinion signed by three justices that also partially dissented. AND, there was the dissenting opinion which also partly concurred and was signed by Justice Powell (rather interesting to have the writer of the majority opinion sign the dissenting opinion as well). oh, and another justice (Stevens, i think) wrote his own opinion). my point is that the justices seemed rather at odds with this case and were not so rigidly decisive as the article suggests. perhaps this has no place in a wikipedia article--i jus thought that the article wasn't capturing what this case is really about and how it was handled. sodakota22 ( talk) 7:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.216.157 ( talk)
A bunch of IP editors came around and blanked several sections, and a few of them blatantly vandalized as well. I removed the vandalism, but some sections are still blanked, just giving people a heads-up if they want to look at the edit history. 71.113.26.19 ( talk) 03:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
BAKKE & THE POLITICS OF EQUALITY: Friends and Foes in the Classroom of Litigation, Timothy J. O’Neill, Wesleyan University Press (Connecticut), distributed by Harper & Row, 1985, pages 20-60.
Bakke was rejected by UC Davis and ten other medical schools he applied to.
page 22:
‘ . . . Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) . . . ninety-seventh percentile in scientific knowledge, ninety-sixth in verbal ability, and ninety-fourth in quantitative analysis. He ranked in the seventy-second percentile in general knowledge. His statement of purpose was articulate and his letters of recommendation were strong. In March of 1973 Bakke was invited for an interview. The faculty member who conducted the interview described him as “a well-qualified candidate for admission whose main hardship is the unavoidable fact that he is now 33. . . . [ellipses in book] On the grounds of motivation, academic records, potential promise, endorsement by persons capable of reasonable judgments, personal appearance and decorum, maturity, and probable contribution to balance in the class, I believe Mr. Bakke must be considered as a very desirable applicant and I shall so recommend him.”[4] . . ’
4. Report of Dr. Theodore West to the Davis medical school admissions committee, quoted in the Record of the lower court’s findings (in Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Yolo, Super. Crt. No. 31287 (1974). [Herafter cited as Bakke (Yolo Cty, Calif., Superior Ct)]) on file with the Office of the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court, pp. 224-25.
page 22:
“In March of 1973 Bakke was invited for an interview. . .
“ . . . However, despite 468 points out of a possible 500 on the admissions committee’s rating scale, Bakke was not admitted. Bakke completed his application late because his mother was ill. Earlier in the year, a rating of 470 had won “automatic admission” with some promising applicants being admitted with lower scores.[5] But by March the number of remaining slots were few, and Bakke received notice of his rejection on May 14, 1973. . . ”
5. Robert Lindsey, “White/Caucasian—And Rejected,” New York Times Magazine, April 3, 1977, p. 44. Unfortunately, there are no specific figures indicating how many applicants with scores lower than 470 were admitted in 1973. Neither the court record nor any of the briefs contain this information, and the Davis medical school admissions office refused to publish this data.
pages 23-24:
[Assistant Dean Peter C. Storandt]
‘Storandt “told Bakke his candidacy had come close and urged him to reapply. If he were not accepted, he could then research the legal question. He had been a good candidate. I thought he’d be accepted and that would end the matter.”[8]
‘Storandt gave Bakke the names of two lawyers who were interested in the issue of affirmative action. The candor of his advice to Bakke led several groups later to charge collusion between Bakke and the university. Ralph Smith, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and chairman of the National Conference of Black Lawyers’ Task Force on Legal Education and Bar Admissions insisted that “Allan Bakke was virtually invited to sue the U.C. Davis Medical School by a University official.” Smith concluded that it was the university, not Bakke, “who is opposed to minority admissions programs.”[9] The general counsel for the University of California, Donald L. Reidhaar, called such charges “ridiculous.”[10] He later said, “I don’t think Storandt meant to injure the university. It’s simply an example of a non-lawyer advising on legal matters.”[11] Storandt agreed, “I simply gave Allan the response you’d give an irate customer, to try and cool his anger. I realized the university might be vulnerable to legal attack because of its quota, and I had the feeling by then that somebody somewhere would sue the school, but I surely didn’t know this would be the case.”[12] Whatever the truth behind the charges of collusion, Storandt was demoted and later resigned to accept a position as associate dean of admissions at Oberlin College.[13]’
8. Quoted in Carol Benfell, “Should the Constitution Really be Colorblind?”, Barrister 4 (Fall 1977), pp. 52-53.
9. Ralph Smith, “Examining the Merits of the Bakke Case,” The Daily Pennsylvanian (the student newspaper of the University of Pennsylvania), March 4, 1977, p. 4. The letters exchanged between Bakke and Storandt are reprinted in Appendix A, “Brief of Amici Curiae for the National Urban League, et al., on Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of California,” pp 1a-8a.
10. Quoted in “The Furor Over Reverse Discrimination,” Newsweek, September 26, 1977, p. 54.
11. Quoted in Benfell, “Should the Constitution Really be Colorblind?,” p. 17.
12. Ibid., pp. 53-54.
13. See Ibid., p. 17, and letter from Peter Storandt to Newsweek, November 14, 1977, p. 6.
See also . . .
Supreme Court Milestones, The Bakke Case: Challenging affirmative action, Rebecca Stefoff, 2006, page 71.
Bakke: A Man Driven To Become a Doctor, Robert Lindsey (New York Times News Service), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 29, 1978, page 8.
“ . . . The letter was answered by Storandt, who was then the manager of medical school admissions at Davis and is now an admissions officer at Yale University. Storandt sympathized with Bakke and tacitly encouraged him to challenge the minority preference program in court.
“When Bakke again submitted an application at Davis in the summer of 1973, it was rejected again, and there is evidence in the files of the university that his complaints were considered in this decision at least as much as his grades and test scores. . . ”
pages 24-25:
[Chair of Admissions Committee Dr. George H. Lowrey]
‘In a letter to Storandt dated August 7, 1973, Bakke outlined his plan. He would reapply to Davis under an early admissions program. He would simultaneously prepare to sue Davis, Stanford Universtiy Medical School, or the University of California Medical School at San Francisco, should he fail in his second application.[14] Having reapplied, Bakke was again invited for an interview. The student interviewer described Bakke as “friendly, well-tempered, conscientious and delightful to speak with,” and concluded, “I would give him a sound recommendation for [a] medical career.”[15] The faculty interviewerer was less enthusiastic. The chairman of the admissions committee, Dr. George H. Lowrey, decided to interview Bakke himself. He found Bakke “disturbing,” noting, “[H]e had very definite opinions which were based more on his personal viewpoint than upon the total problem. He was very unsympathetic to the concept of recruiting minority students so that they hopefully would go back to practice in the neglected areas of the country. . . . [ellipses in book] My own impression of Mr. Bakke is that he is a rather rigidly oriented young man who has a tendency to arrive at conclusions based more upon his personal impressions than upon thoughtful processes using available sources of information.”[16] None of the parties in the lawsuit nor the organizations filing amicus curiae briefs, save one, explored the First Amendment and due process issues raised by Lowrey’s interviewing of Bakke, and that one did so only in passing.[17]
‘Using a newly expanded rating system, the five members of the committee gave Bakke scores of 96, 94, 92, 87, and 86 out of a possible 100 points. Storandt gave Bakke the 92; the student member gave him the 94; the lowest rating, 86, came from Lowrey. Bakke received an aggregate score of 549 out of a possible 600 and was denied admission for a second time.[18] His attorneys would later argue that, despite the fact that Bakke’s grade point average and performance on the MCAT were higher than those of the average regular admittee [Emphasis added], Lowrey had intentionally “penalize[d]” Bakke for challenging the special admissions program by “downgrading” his interview score. This was enough, his attorneys asserted, to make the difference between acceptance or rejection by the school.[19]’
14. Letter from Allan Bakke to Peter C. Storandt, August 7, 1973, reproduced in “Brief of Amici Curiae for the National Urban League, et al.” Bakke (U.S. Supr. Ct.), pp. 4a-6a.
15. Record, Bakke (Yolo County, Calif., Superior Ct.), pp. 228-29.
16. Ibid., pp. 225-26.
17. “To the extent Bakke’s second rejection was predicated upon his political opposition to the University’s special admissions project, the rejection raises serious First Amendment questions” (“Brief of the American Jewish Committee, et al., Amici Curiae”, Bakke (U.S. Supr. Ct.), p. 8 n. 5).
18. “Brief for Respondent,” Bakke (U.S. Supr. Ct.), pp. 9 and 13.
19. “Brief of Plaintiff, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant,” Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, 553 P. 2d 1152 (1976), p. 41. [This case hereafter cited as Bakke (Calif. Supr. Ct.)].
I would agree with you, FriendlyRiverOtter, that 33 seems to be an ideal age to start becoming a doctor -- however, ageism (as well as sexism and racism) were quite strong back then. Being anything over 25 was considered "old", particularly to start something as rigorous as medical school. It was virtually impossible to get admitted to med school after that age (and it was as equally impossible to get admitted if you were a woman -- regardless of your age.) Another example of the "ageist" attitudes back then -- a woman who was having her first child after the age of 29 was labeled by the medical profession as an "elderly primigravida." (BTW -- I am also Justitia Pax -- I couldn't remember my user name when I made the edits discussed above.) Justitia1 ( talk) 09:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
See also . . .
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4095
pages 26-27:
‘The trial record indicated that while 272 whites considered by Davis as disadvantaged had applied to the program during the years 1971 to 1974, none had been accepted under the special admissions rationale. It is not clear whether disadvantaged white applicants had been interviewed by the task force. Dr. Lowrey said no;[23] a member of the committee asserted that they had been.[24]’
23. Record, Bakke (Yolo County, Calif., Superior Ct.), pp. 64-66, 86, 168, 195-96, 201-33, 388.
24. Letter to the editor of the Sacramento Bee from Dr. Sarah D. Grey, past Task Force Chairperson, January 4, 1977, reproduced in Appendix B, “Brief of Amici Curiae for the National Urban League, et al.,” p. 10a.
page 21:
‘ . . . joined the Marine Corps to fulfill his Naval ROTC obligation. Bakke served four years with the corps. During seven months service as a commanding officer of an antiaircraft battery in Vietnam, he first began to think about attending medical school.[1] He was honorably discharged with the rank of captain . . . [2]’
1. “Brief for Respondent,” p. 3, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). [This case hereafter cited as Bakke (U.S. Supr. Ct.).]
2. Robert Lindsey, “White/Caucasian—And Rejected,” New York Times Magazine, April 3, 1977, p. 43.
page 27:
‘ . . . Occasionally, exceptions to this rank-ordering process were made for veterans and applicants with unusual records.[25]
25. Record, Bakke (Yolo County, Calif., Superior Ct.), pp. 62-63, 150-59.
page 27:
The Los Angeles Times also reported that the medical school dean intervened on behalf of the sons and daughters of the university’s “special friends” to improve their admissions chances.[26] . . ’
26. “Medical Dean Aids ‘Special Interest’ Applicants,” Los Angeles Times, July 5, 1976, pp. 1, 3
Supreme Court Milestones, The Bakke Case: Challenging affirmative action, Rebecca Stefoff, 2006, page 11:
“ . . . Before the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 became law in 1979, medical schools openly favored younger applicants over older ones. . . ”
America in Black and White, Stephan Thernstrom, Abigail Thernstrom, a Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster, 1997.
" . . . By the time he applied to the medical school at the Universtiy of California at Davis in 1973, he was in his early thirties, and his age was a serious handicap. (Professional schools in the days before the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 seldom trained students who had been out of college for more than a few years.) On the other hand, Bakke's credentials were excellent. His grade record was stronger than that of most regular admittees, and his MCAT scores were much better. . . "
No Merit System Is Fully Objective, Ellen Goodman, Editorial, Milwaukee Sentinel, Sept. 24, 1977, page 13.
“ . . . Now, it’s always seemed to me that Bakke had a better case for age discrimination than race. At 32, he was rejected by 13 medical schools, not one. . . ”
Court decides in favor of Bakke, Deseret News [Salt Lake City], Washington (UPI), June 28, 1978, 1A (above the fold), 12A:
‘The Supreme Court ruled today Allan Bakke must be admitted to the University of California . . . ’
‘ . . . Bakke, a 38-year-old white engineer . . . ’
‘ . . . UC Davis, under an affirmative action admissions program, had set aside 16 of 100 openings for minority applicants . . . ’
‘ . . . It took the justices more than one hour to read their six separate opinions . . . ’
‘ . . . in forming a new program the school may use race as a factor. . . ’
‘ . . . Justice Lewis Powell, writing the swing opinion, said California courts in barring consideration of race in admissions programs “failed to recognize that the state has a substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions program involving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin.”’
‘And Brennan, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun joined to say the decision “affirms the constitutional power of federal and state government to act affirmatively to achieve equal opportunity for all.”
‘Powell said the Davis program was unconstitutional and Bakke’s admission must be upheld because after the California courts had ruled in his favor, the university conceded it could not prove Bakke still would have been barred had there been no minority program.
‘Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart and William Rehnquist said the program violated a section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which bars discrimination in federally funded programs. . . ’
Court Orders Medical School Admit Bakke, Nashua Telegraph [New Hampshire], Washington (AP), June 28, 1978, page 2:
“The Supreme Court today ordered a California medical school to admit Allan Bakke, deciding that the school had illegally discriminated against him because he is white.
“The court, in a splintered decision that yielded six separated opinions, ruled that the University of California’s medical school at Davis is not barred from taking race into account in a future admissions program. . . ”
The Gazette, (Montreal), “Bakke and blacks both win,” Editorial, page 6, June 29, 1978:
‘ . . . the U.S. Supreme Court has come up with a brilliant solution. It ruled that Mr. Bakke must be admitted to the medical school that rejected him, but at the same time it upheld the constitutionality of “affirmative action” programs. . . ’
‘ . . . The vote was 5-to-4 for Mr. Bakke and 5-to-4 for affirmative action, though it was not the same five in both instances. Altogether there were six decisions as the justices felt their way through this prickly legal and social thicket. . . ’
‘ . . . The problem of reconciling equality of opportunity for individuals with remedial justice for minorities is one face by any society in Canada with linguistic groups and native peoples no less than in the United States. . . ’
‘ . . . It was not what the medical school was trying to do that was intolerable: it was the way that it did it – reserving 16 per cent of its places for minority applicants. Justice Lewis Powell pointedly contrasted the University of California policy with that at Harvard, where race or ethnic background can be a “plus” for an individual without insulating him “from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats.” . . ’
‘ . . . And Allan Bakke, who five years ago was judged by an interviewer to be facing his “last chance” because of his age, then 33, will be getting his first.’
Our article currently reads: "Blacks," "Chicanos," "Asians," and "American Indians", with the quotation marks in the article. Maybe a writer is trying to make a point that such groups are largely artificial and we're all human beings afterall. If so, there are plenty of critics and commentators making this and similar points. It would be better for an encyclopedia to use one of these quotes.
And, this is just plain unusual writing, and I'm not sure an encyclopedia is the best place to experiment with unusual writing.
So, I'm planning to go ahead and remove the quotation marks. And, as always, open offer. I think the article can use a fair amount of help. If this is a topic that interests you, please, jump in and help out. :>) FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 17:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Dec. 12, 1978.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=s4RQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-RIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5747,3002765&dq=bakke+mother&hl=en
http://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2060/Issue%203/phillips.pdf
http://www.stetson.edu/law/conferences/highered/archive/2004/Discrimination.pdf <-- a seemingly good summary by the general counsel of Brown University, but then, I am not a lawyer. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 22:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/research/liu3.pdf
Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice, Lee Epstein, Thomas G. Walker, CQ Press (SAGE Publications, Inc), 2013, page 692. See chart at bottom of page.
I think we should model the article after FAs which are about Supreme Court cases, such as this.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 02:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this one. Comments in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I only made it through the lead tonight and glanced at the rest, but my first impression is that this looks quite good. Shouldn't be much to do before passing. Will finish tomorrow, hopefully. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I've made it through the first pass of the article, and this looks solid. It covers the main aspects (I double-checked it against the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution entry), is well-referenced, and neutral. Only a few minor action points above, and I'll proceed to the checklist. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Comparison to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002104.html and other sources suggests main aspects are covered. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | N/A | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | N/A | |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
Is there some Wikipedia precedent for abbreviating the university as "U.C.-Davis"? This particular style is never used in any official university capacity, nor can I recall seeing it colloquially outside of this site. The proper styling as per the University style guide is "UC Davis".
http://marketingtoolbox.ucdavis.edu/writing/editorial-style-guide/u.html
University of California, Davis. Set off “Davis” by two commas: the University of California, Davis, was chosen. “UC Davis” is used in second and subsequent references in news releases and in publications. Do not use “UCD.” Use no periods in UC. Never say the University of California at Davis.
PxT ( talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
One of the people admitted to medical school instead of Bakke ended up having his medical license revoked. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/15/us/patrick-chavis-50-affirmative-action-figure.html PapayaSF ( talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
How about this pop culture perspective= There was an old National Lampoon LTE that I recite as an example of NOT funny,
Dear editors, I wrote a song. It’s called “HaHa Negroes”
HaHa negroes, HaHa negroes, I’m a doctor now. s/ Allan Bakke
I can find the back numbers if asked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C890:7210:B009:6808:C27E:DB88 ( talk) 18:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
The artile says "Allan Paul Bakke (born 1940),[19] a 35-year-old white male, applied to twelve medical schools in 1973", which doesn't make sense. When was he born? -- OhNoPeedyPeebles ( talk) 17:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Add as first sentence in first paragraph in 'Powell's Opinion' section acknowledging the emphasis on the First Amendment in the diversity rationale of the opinion: " Justice Powell based a significant portion of his diversity rationale in the decision on the First Amendment, which has been significantly emphasized by later scholars. [1] [2]
Cf2022 ( talk) 09:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022
References
There are five images used in this article and three of them depict or relate to anti-Bakke protests. The fact that there are three seems redundant enough for such a relatively brief article -- the flyer is especially unnecessary -- but it also seems to insinuate an NPOV slant toward opposition to the court's decision. I think the image selection should be reconsidered. 2600:8801:710D:EA00:ED4C:E1FF:500F:7399 ( talk) 04:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)