Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a dispute over whether preferential treatment for minorities could reduce educational opportunities for whites without violating the Constitution.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: 1978 438 U.S. 265 race could be considered among other factors in the college admissions process, but racial quotas under affirmative action are unconstitutional Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1: 2007 551 U.S. 701
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) Racial quotas in educational institutions violate the Equal Protection Clause, but a more narrowly tailored use of race in admission decisions may be permissible. (Partially overruled by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)) Batson v.
The controversy pertaining to affirmative action in California can most notably be traced back to the historic 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. [1] There were two major decisions from the case that still stand today.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_California_Regents_v._Bakke&oldid=1026661689"
Jeffry Umaña Muñoz, a Cal State L.A. graduate student, is at the precipice of a life-changing moment: the potential ability to get a campus job at one of California's public higher education ...
The Court held "The judgment below is affirmed insofar as it orders [Bakke's] admission to Davis and invalidates [the university's] special admissions program, but is reversed insofar as it prohibits [the university] from taking race into account as a factor in its future admissions decisions" Regents of the University of California v. Bakke ...
Coats was the mayor of Oklahoma City, and the lawyer who in 1984 successfully argued before the Supreme Court that the NCAA’s control of football television rights violated federal antitrust law.