Mock Trial #4

-

 Bakke v. Regents of the University of California

Mock Trial: Anti-Affirmative Action (Bakke's Argument)

Bakke v. Regents of the University of California was a Supreme Court case which took place in 1978 regarding the topic of affirmative action and other measures of integration's constitutionality. Allan P. Bakke was denied from the University of California, leading him to initiate this case to go against affirmative action. The California State courts originally decided in 1977 that the affirmative action program was not acceptable, striking it down and admitting Bakke into the university, but things changed within the next year as the United States Supreme Court accepted the case after an overwhelming amount of public attention and protest.

a monochrome photo of a protest rally. Many of the protesters are minorities, and have Afro hairstyles. "WOMEN AGAINST BAKKE" is a typical sign being held.

For my mock trial position arguing in favor of Bakke, I take the stance of claiming that the affirmative action program was racist or a form of reverse-discrimination:

"People of the court, I am here today to argue in favor of my associate Allan P. Bakke who wishes to challenge this issue of affirmative action within the University of California. To emphasize upon the points broken down by my fellow trial members, I now will make the claim that the affirmative action program in use at this institution is, by definition, racist. This action of reverse-discrimination upon white applicants like Bakke is wrong and unconstitutional. A university of this caliber should not be taking race into account when admitting its applicants due to the simple fact that it should be based solely upon the credentials and skills of said persons. To bring such a thing as race into the equation is limiting the ability of those who are more than qualified to be accepted and attend this university. For example, an African American student may apply with a much lower test score or grade average, but still be accepted before a man like Bakke, who is significantly more qualified but just happens to be white. This is a blatant and foul display of discrimination and is only turning the wheels in reverse when it comes to rights and the removal of racism in our society.

To Tackle such a problem as less opportunity-rich communities, it is the wrong move to make guidelines on race alone or truly at all. Instead, the government should be focused on putting a greater amount of funds towards poverty-ridden communities and most importantly their education. Such action would allow for these students, who have actually been stereotyped by this university and our government as only minorities, to acquire a better education and attain greater success as far as college attendance, without need for special rules in place at higher learning. Ultimately, Bakke should not only be admitted into the University of California, but the affirmative action program should be entirely struck down, just as the state court had initially decided. It is time that the government and universities take responsibility and initiative within less fortunate communities, and stop discriminating applicants solely because of their race."

U.S. Supreme Court building

The Supreme Court changed the decision made by the state court, ruling that race was indeed a factor that could be used when choosing applicants to enroll. However, the court did strike down the quota system that was in place due to the fact that essentially, minorities would be limited to that small quota when being admitted into the university, and they would only be competing against each other. The court basically decided that the playing field for applicants needed to be open, but the university still holds the right to use race as an additional factor for a chance of acceptance. 

Links

Cornell: Bakke v Regents

Oyez.org

Britannica: Bakke Decision



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Glory (1989) Reflection

-
Image
  The Story of the Union's First Black Regiment After starting this film, I was first met with a small biography meant to give the viewer an idea of the main character's situation. This main character is a man named Robert Gould Shaw, who's backstory leading up to his being named colonel and the main events of the film is displayed. This single character perspective does not, however, interfere with the value behind the film, and the focus on the colonel is mildly depleted later on to keep the message in a significant stance. The film is most directly making a point of sharing the story of the first colored men to ever fight for the union, as they were prohibited for decades prior. The team of African American troops takes on challenges with courage and prove themselves to be a worthy regiment among an entirely white union army. This leads up to them leading the charge on Fort Wagner, a Confederate establishment. The black regiment, alon...
Read more

EOTO #3

-
Image
 Supreme Court Paving the Way A large factor in the Brown v. Board of Education court decision was the path paved by three prior major court rulings. The first being Mendez v. Westminster. This case in particular was not a ruling by the Supreme Court as it was kept within the California federal courts by the school board officials. However, this 1947 court case (just under 8 years prior to Brown v. Board) decided that forcing students with Mexican ancestry into separate remedial schools was unconstitutional, mainly based upon the limitations from not being able to learn English while surrounded by it. Three years later, two anti-segregation Supreme Court cases were both successful on the same day. Sweatt v. Painter of 1950 was one of these two cases in which it was decided that a black man named Herman Sweatt had the right to attend the University of Texas Law School, as opposed to their law school created "equally" for people of color. The s...
Read more