0
In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the defendant, the University of California, argued that its affirmative action program was necessary to promote diversity within the student body and to remedy past discrimination against minority groups. They contended that the program aimed to create a more equitable educational environment and prepare students for a multicultural society. The university maintained that its admissions policies were designed to achieve these goals without outright quotas, which they claimed were not the sole basis for admissions decisions.
What else can I help you with?
What was the supreme courts ruling in the regents of the university of California v bake case of 1978?
The court ruled that the use of racial quotas in college admissions was unconstitutional Source; study island
What does the V in Plaintiff v Defendant stand for?
Versus.
Which U.S. Supreme Court decision made it illegal to achieve diversity through the use of racial quotas?
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Who won the case of regents v bakke?
Bakke won, he was accepted into the school.
In the case The People of the state of Florida v Jones who is the defendant?
The defendant of the case would Jones.
Who is the defendant in the case of The People of the State of Florida v. Jones?
The defendant of the case would Jones.
What case focused on a defendant lack of access to counsel because the defendant was indigent?
Gideon v. Wainwright
Who is the defendant in the case of lemon v kurtzman?
Kurtzman
Who was the defendant in schempp v abington?
edward schempp
Which supreme court decision struck down the quota system?
Regents of University of California v. Bakke
Who were the plaintiff and defendant in the Cherokee Nation v Georgia case?
The plaintiff (or complainant) was the Cherokee Nation; the defendant (actually the respondent) was the State of Georgia.Case Citation:Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831)
What was a social impact of the gideon v wainwright case?
In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant cannot afford a lawyer, one must be provided to him or her regardless of the defendant's ability to pay or the importance of the charges.
