What was the Supreme Courts decision in the Regents of the University of California v Bakke case?

Recommended textbook solutions

American Government

1st EditionGlen Krutz

412 solutions

American Corrections

11th EditionMichael D. Reisig, Todd R. Clear

160 solutions

Criminal Justice in America

9th EditionChristina Dejong, Christopher E. Smith, George F Cole

105 solutions

Government in America: Elections and Updates Edition

16th EditionGeorge C. Edwards III, Martin P. Wattenberg, Robert L. Lineberry

269 solutions

Overview

"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."

This case explores the legal concept of equal protection.

In the early 1970s, the University of California Davis School of Medicine devised a dual admissions program to increase representation of racial minorities and “disadvantaged” students. Allan Bakke, a White person, applied to and was rejected from the regular admissions program. Applicants of color with lower grade point averages and test scores were admitted under the specialty admissions program. Bakke filed suit, alleging that the dual admissions system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment 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 criterion among several others.

For Teachers

This section is for teachers.

Use the links below to access:

• student versions of the activities in .PDF and Word formats
• how to differentiate and adapt the materials
• how to scaffold the activities
• how to extend the activities
• technology suggestions
• answers to select activities  

(Learn more about Street Law's commitment and approach to quality curriculum.)

About the Case

• Full Case Summaries: A summary of case facts, issues, relevant constitutional provisions/statutes/precedents, arguments for each side, decision, and impact. Available at a high school and middle school levels. 
• Case Background: Background information at three reading levels.
• Case Vocabulary: Important related vocabulary terms at two reading levels.
• Diagram of How the Case Moved Through the Court System
• Case summary graphic organizer
• Decision: A summary of the decision and key excerpts from the opinion(s)

Learning Activities

The Case

• Classifying Arguments Activity
• Applying Precedents Activity
• Understanding the Decision

After the Case

• Applying Precedents: Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)
• The Michigan Affirmative Action Cases
• Cartoon Analysis
• Mini-Moot Court Activity: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016) 
• The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause

Teacher Resources

Teaching Strategies Used

• Applying Precedents
• Classifying Arguments
• Mini-Moot Courts
• Political Cartoon Analysis

Landmark Cases Glossary

The LandmarkCases.org glossary compiles all of the important vocab terms from case materials. It is provided as a view-only Google Sheet.

Glossary

Planning Time and Activities

If you have one day . . .

•  Read the background summary (•••, ••, •) and answer the questions.
• Complete the Classifying Arguments Activity. Discuss which arguments the students find most convincing.
• For homework, have students read the Key Excerpts from the Opinion and answer the questions. Follow-up the next day by reviewing the questions with students.

If you have two days . . .

• Complete all activities for the first day (excluding homework).
• On the second day, complete the Applying Precedents Activity.
• Complete Understanding the Decision activity.
• For homework, have students read the Key Excerpts from the Opinion and answer the questions. Follow-up the next day by reviewing the questions with students.

If you have three days . . .

• Complete all activities suggested for the first and second days (including homework).
• On the third day, complete the Cartoon Analysis Activity.
• Complete Applying Precedents Activity: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016). Or complete the Michigan Affirmative Action Cases activity.
• For homework, have students complete the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause activity.

If you have four days . . .

• Complete all of the activities suggested for the first, second and third days (excluding homework).
• On the Fourth day, complete Mini-Moot Court Activity: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016)
• For homework, have students complete the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause activity.

Return to Case Listing