Username: Password:
Welcome! Please Sign In or Register

University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978)

Issue: Whether the University’s special admissions program, which accepted minority students with significantly ...
Read More
Item added by Redoedo. Added on 09/06/2003
RSS Icon

5 Reviews

LanceRoxas
01/27/2006

University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978) 1

The Court assuming the authority to end or mitigate years of discrimination by authorizing the subjective discrimination against generations of individuals who did not benefit from previous discrimination renders the 14th amendment "meaningless". On a functional level affirmative action simply doesn't work. It benefits the sons and daughters of rich minorities at the expense of disenfranchised poor minorities and low class white immigrants and decedents of poor immigrants who battled years of hardship themselves.

Join to vote! 2 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

Drummond
11/28/2005

University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978) 2

Ending the legacy of discrimination and mitigating the latent discrimination that prevails to this date consitute a compelling state interest that should outweigh the interest in "colorblind" policy.

Join to vote! 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

TJGypsy2
05/10/2005

University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978) 5

Admissions to schools of this type should be based solely on the merit of those applying, independant of race, religion, or economic backgrounds. It seems odd to me that we would sanction a program that allowed barely passing students a chance to become lawyers, doctors or engineers, while excluding more qualified applicants.

Join to vote! 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

spartacus007
05/09/2005

University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978) 5

Base it on real background, not skin color.

Join to vote! 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

stolypin
11/14/2004

University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978) 4

There is no costitutional defense of affirmative action. In fact, its a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Join to vote! 3 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

5 reviews!     « Previous  |  Page    of  1  |  Next »

view stats
3.00
average based on 6 ratings