background preloader

Mariojesuz

Facebook Twitter

Court decision harks to UC's Bakke case: New affirmative action ruling could have profound impacts, but not at UC | UC Davis. Title VI Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000d Et Seq. | CRT | Department of Justice. Overview of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. As President John F. Kennedy said in 1963: Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races [colors, and national origins] contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial [color or national origin] discrimination. If a recipient of federal assistance is found to have discriminated and voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, the federal agency providing the assistance should either initiate fund termination proceedings or refer the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal action.

Statutes and Regulations Title VI Regulations of Other Federal Agencies Title VI Materials LEP Materials Videos Publications. Object moved. June 2016 Current Case Fisher v. Texas In 2008, several high school seniors who had been denied admission at the University of Texas-Austin filed a lawsuit. The students argued that the University of Texas could not use race as a factor in admission processes if there were other race-neutral options that would have the same results on diversity.

In a 7-1 Fischer I ruling released June 2013, the Court did not overturn affirmative action generally, but did emphasize that affirmative action programs need to be more strictly reviewed. In June 2016, the Court ruled in Fischer II by a 4-3 vote that the the University of Texas at Austin's race-conscious admissions program is constitutional. History Overview In the 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v.

In a direct challenge to the Bakke decision, the U.S. In 1995 and 1996, two lawsuits challenged the constitutionality of using race in the admission processes at the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law School. Supreme Court upholds affirmative action in university admissions. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Was Wrongly Decided. I. Introduction Q: In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

{{1}} Justice Scalia’s Answer: Yes, yes…. Justice Scalia is correct: The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to protect black Americans’ personal rights from being taken away by a state{{3}} because of discrimination.{{4}} But what type of discrimination? [caption id=”attachment_2712" align=”alignright” width=”300"] Supreme Court Building; Image Copyright a2gemma (Flickr), 2012[/caption] The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that Regents of the University of California v. [[1]]Scalia: Constitution does not protect women against discrimination, [[3]]See e.g., Dred Scott v. Westlaw Signon. Welcome to LexisNexis - Choose Your Path. Oyez. The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)

In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Court ruled unconstitutional a university's use of racial "quotas" in its admissions process, but held that affirmative action programs could be constitutional in some circumstances. Reproduction courtesy of the University of California Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Lewis Franklin Powell, ruled that a state may constitutionally consider race as a factor in its university admissions to promote educational diversity, but only if considered alongside other factors and on a case-by-case basis. California's use of racial quotas in this case, however, did not meet those requirements and violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, which forbids a state from denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

" Regents of University of California v. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE. United States Supreme Court UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE, (1978) No. 76-811 Argued: October 12, 1977 Decided: June 28, 1978 The Medical School of the University of California at Davis (hereinafter Davis) had two admissions programs for the entering class of 100 students - the regular admissions program and the special admissions program. Held: The judgment below is affirmed insofar as it orders respondent's admission to Davis and invalidates petitioner's special admissions program, [438 U.S. 265, 267] but is reversed insofar as it prohibits petitioner from taking race into account as a factor in its future admissions decisions. 18 Cal. 3d 34, 553 P.2d 1152, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Archibald Cox argued the cause for petitioner. Reynold H. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Lawrence A. Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Matthew W. MR. Affirmed in part and reversed in part Bakke's 1974 application was completed early in the year. Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke.

" . . . Race or ethnic background may be deemed a "plus" in a particular applicant's file, yet it does not insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats. " — Justice Powell, Speaking for the Court In the early 1970s, the medical school of the University of California at Davis devised a dual admissions program to increase representation of disadvantaged minority students. Allan Bakke was a white male who applied to and was rejected from the regular admissions program, while minority applicants with lower grade point averages and testing scores were admitted under the specialty admissions program.

Bakke filed suit, alleging that this admissions system violated the Equal Protection Clause and excluded him on the basis of race. The Supreme Court found for Bakke against the rigid use of racial quotas, but also established that race was a permissible criteria among several others. Learn more About the materials Important vocabulary (by reading level)