The argument I am presenting to you today is in favor of Mr. Bakke illustrates the violation of his constitutional and fundamental rights as a US citizen applying to college. As we already know, this was a landmark Supreme Court case in 1978 that was set to uphold affirmative action stating race could now be a factor for the college admission policy. Allan Bakke was rejected from medical school even after proving to have an exceedingly impressive resume to present to the college board. The University California at Davis enacted a rule that stated white applicants would compete for 84 out of the 100 spots for applicants and color applicants would compete for the remaining 16 spots Bakke decided to take the decision he had been given and try to fight it, only failing in passing reassessment for entry. Mr. Bakke should be able to attend the University of his choice and under no circumstance should his admission decision be made on the basis of race, age, status or any other discriminatory factor.
In implementing this system, this rigid quota system violates the 14th amendment, the Equal Protection Clause And the rights that fall under that through the United States Constitution, also a violation under Title VI (9) under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing”. Title VI states 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 discrimination” (JFK, 1963). This already proves the point that they are unable to discriminate just because he does not help them to meet efforts of diversity and the school. Further, under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, it is not allowed that you deny citizens equal protection of laws. The school is using their personal benefit and gain as means for admission at this point in going for those who help them to fulfill quotas of diversity.
Though during this time, it was generally more of a commonality for white individuals to be receiving a college education, that does not mean we can discriminate just to promote a more diverse school. The University needs to uphold standards and admit based on the criteria of GPA, test scores, class rank and items of that nature, and off of no personal or individual gain. The idea that the university should accept more colored students and integrate minorities is a progressive and beneficial one, however it cannot be used to eliminate all prior criteria for admission. That is unfair and unjust. Those seeking higher education should be able to do so without fear or rejection or retribution for doing so just based on the color of their skin.
In following the points set forth by the 14th amendment of our constitution, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. The University of California at Davis should be unable to void Mr. Bakke of his admission on the basis of race because it clearly violates his rights under the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke
https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI-Overview
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents.html
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/civil-rights-center/statutes/civil-rights-act-of-1964#:~:text=The%20Civil%20Rights%20Act%20of%201964%20prohibits%20discrimination%20on%20the,hiring%2C%20promoting%2C%20and%20firing.
No comments:
Post a Comment