Talk:Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

message: Is this snippet relevant to the case at hand? "[Bakke's] lowest score of 86 was from Dr. Lowrey who found Bakke was "rather limited in his approach" to the problems of the medical profession and stated Bakke's "very definite opinions which were based more on his personal viewpoints than upon a study of the total problem" were disturbing." Nothing more is ever stated about this... -- Xanadu 18:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant Content 

message: To clarify the POV claim made by User:Twp: unlike a previous edit by User:130.165.200.100, who described the Court as having "twisted logic" in their decision, I am not including my own POVs in this article - the truth of the matter is, and those on the far left will even acknowledge it, that qualified and competent white students are often denied admission to universities today as a result of this case which legalized affirmative action, myself being one of them. Sebastian Prospero 19:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim Pierce 18:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged bias in article 

message: Does this ruling pertain to all college and university admissions, or only those of public institutions?--Pharos 03:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: I was referencing this article for some research, and it would appear that some form of vandalism has rendered this page nigh unto totally useless and empty of helpful information. In the history I can see that it used to be a good article, but I don't know enough (am not confident enough) to change anything back, and I wouldn't know what version to put in place. I'm looking for some help or advice on how to put this back to being a decent page worth visiting... BlueLily91 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: pages 24-25:[Chair of Admissions Committee Dr. George H. Lowrey]‘In a letter to Storandt dated August 7, 1973, Bakke outlined his plan.  He would reapply to Davis under an early admissions program.  He would simultaneously prepare to sue Davis, Stanford Universtiy Medical School, or the University of California Medical School at San Francisco, should he fail in his second application.[14]  Having reapplied, Bakke was again invited for an interview.  The student interviewer described Bakke as “friendly, well-tempered, conscientious and delightful to speak with,” and concluded, “I would give him a sound recommendation for [a] medical career.”[15]  The faculty interviewerer was less enthusiastic.  The chairman of the admissions committee, Dr. George H. Lowrey, decided to interview Bakke himself.  He found Bakke “disturbing,” noting, “[H]e had very definite opinions which were based more on his personal viewpoint than upon the total problem.  He was very unsympathetic to the concept of recruiting minority students so that they hopefully would go back to practice in the neglected areas of the country.  .  .  . [ellipses in book]  My own impression of Mr. Bakke is that he is a rather rigidly oriented young man who has a tendency to arrive at conclusions based more upon his personal impressions than upon thoughtful processes using available sources of information.”[16]  None of the parties in the lawsuit nor the organizations filing amicus curiae briefs, save one, explored the First Amendment and due process issues raised by Lowrey’s interviewing of Bakke, and that one did so only in passing.[17]  
‘Using a newly expanded rating system, the five members of the committee gave Bakke scores of 96, 94, 92, 87, and 86 out of a possible 100 points.  Storandt gave Bakke the 92; the student member gave him the 94; the lowest rating, 86, came from Lowrey.  Bakke received an aggregate score of 549 out of a possible 600 and was denied admission for a second time.[18]  His attorneys would later argue that, despite the fact that Bakke’s grade point average and performance on the MCAT were higher than those of the average regular admittee [Emphasis added], Lowrey had intentionally “penalize[d]” Bakke for challenging the special admissions program by “downgrading” his interview score.  This was enough, his attorneys asserted, to make the difference between acceptance or rejection by the school.[19]’
14. Letter from Allan Bakke to Peter C. Storandt, August 7, 1973, reproduced in “Brief of Amici Curiae for the National Urban League, et al.” Bakke (U.S. Supr. Ct.), pp. 4a-6a.
15. Record, Bakke (Yolo County, Calif., Superior Ct.), pp. 228-29.
16. Ibid., pp. 225-26.
17. “To the extent Bakke’s second rejection was predicated upon his political opposition to the University’s special admissions project, the rejection raises serious First Amendment questions” (“Brief of the American Jewish Committee, et al., Amici Curiae”, Bakke (U.S. Supr. Ct.), p. 8 n. 5).
18. “Brief for Respondent,” Bakke (U.S. Supr. Ct.), pp. 9 and 13.
19. “Brief of Plaintiff, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant,” Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, 553 P. 2d 1152 (1976), p. 41. [This case hereafter cited as Bakke (Calif. Supr. Ct.)].
----------------------------------
::Yeah, it seems like the chair of the admissions committee was being a first-rate jerk, trying to argue with Bakke and get him 'to see the other side.' (when his whole future is on the line? . . .  Well Sir, would you have so easily given up your medical dream?)  Probably worth including, especially if we can find on the web some of this supporting documentation.
::And it's amazing that Allan Bakke had both higher GPA and higher MCAT than the average person who was admitted.  Wow.  Sure seems like subjective factors, probably most of all his age, worked against him. (altough to me, age 33 almost sounds like the ideal age to start becoming a doctor) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Welcome back to Wikipedia!  :)  I think a lot of articles can use a fair amount of help, and please dive in anywhere the spirit moves you and anywhere you think you can make a positive difference. Now, regarding this article, Bakke vs. UC Davis is usually viewed as part of the whole philosophical discussion regarding reverse discrimation.  But, what I am reading is that the age discrimination aspect is just as significant.  And how many students admitted through children of VIPs and that kind of thing as compared to the special admissions program?  But . . . the case played out along the lines of civil rights and race.  As far as adding to our article here, I favor the approach of using a variety of good sources. (I think trying to find a small number of 'the best' sources often ends up being a perfectionist trap.)  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: abuse of power by chair of admissions committee?

message: pages 26-27:
‘The trial record indicated that while 272 whites considered by Davis as disadvantaged had applied to the program during the years 1971 to 1974, none had been accepted under the special admissions rationale.  It is not clear whether disadvantaged white applicants had been interviewed by the task force.  Dr. Lowrey said no;[23] a member of the committee asserted that they had been.[24]’
23.  Record, Bakke (Yolo County, Calif., Superior Ct.), pp. 64-66, 86, 168, 195-96, 201-33, 388.
24.  Letter to the editor of the Sacramento Bee from Dr. Sarah D. Grey, past Task Force Chairperson, January 4, 1977, reproduced in Appendix B, “Brief of Amici Curiae for the National Urban League, et al.,” p. 10a.
------------------------------------
::And this brings up the whole issue of class-based affirmative action, perhaps in addition, perhaps in substitution of race-based affirmative action.  And we can also improve elementary, junior high, and senior high schools so that more kids of all backgrounds have real opportunities for a quality education (easier said than done).
::All the same, the question does remains, What are we going to do about getting more African-American, Hispanic American, Asian-American, and Native American physicians for this generation?
::And I'm not saying I have ready answers, for I certainly do not.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: special admissions program did not expand beyond category of race

message: page 21:
‘  .  .  .  joined the Marine Corps to fulfill his Naval ROTC obligation.  Bakke served four years with the corps.  During seven months service as a commanding officer of an antiaircraft battery in Vietnam, he first began to think about attending medical school.[1]  He was honorably discharged with the rank of captain . . . [2]’
1.	 “Brief for Respondent,” p. 3, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).  [This case hereafter cited as Bakke (U.S. Supr. Ct.).]
2.	Robert Lindsey, “White/Caucasian—And Rejected,” New York Times Magazine, April 3, 1977, p. 43.
---------------------------------
page 27:
‘  .  .  .  Occasionally, exceptions to this rank-ordering process were made for veterans and applicants with unusual records.[25]
25.  Record, Bakke (Yolo County, Calif., Superior Ct.), pp. 62-63, 150-59.
------------------------------------------------- 
:::And so, Allan Bakke is cut no slack even though he is a veteran!
:::So yes, I think it can be said, with this added to his above-average grades, the medical school decision-makers kept coming back to the fact of his age.
:::And I think a lot of it comes down to is this:  Once the university made a decision---for any reason---they sure don't want to be questioned about it.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: occasional exceptions to rank-ordering process for veterans and applicants with unusual records

message: Our article currently reads: "Blacks," "Chicanos," "Asians," and "American Indians", with the quotation marks in the article.  Maybe a writer is trying to make a point that such groups are largely artificial and we're all human beings afterall.  If so, there are plenty of critics and commentators making this and similar points.  It would be better for an encyclopedia to use one of these quotes.
And, this is just plain unusual writing, and I'm not sure an encyclopedia is the best place to experiment with unusual writing.
So, I'm planning to go ahead and remove the quotation marks.  And, as always, open offer.  I think the article can use a fair amount of help.  If this is a topic that interests you, please, jump in and help out.  :>)  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of quotation marks for ethnic groups? 

message: http://www.stetson.edu/law/conferences/highered/archive/2004/Discrimination.pdf  <-- a seemingly good summary by the general counsel of Brown University, but then, I am not a lawyer.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional references 

message: I think we should model the article after FAs which are about Supreme Court cases, such as this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There should probably be some legal background.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, both of these sound like good ideas. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining on 

message: Is there some Wikipedia precedent for abbreviating the university as "U.C.-Davis"?  This particular style is never used in any official university capacity, nor can I recall seeing it colloquially outside of this site.
The proper styling as per the University style guide is "UC Davis". 
http://marketingtoolbox.ucdavis.edu/writing/editorial-style-guide/u.html
   University of California, Davis. Set off “Davis” by two commas: the University of California, Davis, was chosen. “UC Davis” is used in second and subsequent references in news releases and in publications. Do not use “UCD.” Use no periods in UC. Never say the University of California at Davis.
PxT (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.C.-Davis style 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610224849/http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209text.htm to http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209text.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.
Add as first sentence in first paragraph in 'Powell's Opinion' section acknowledging the emphasis on the First Amendment in the diversity rationale of the opinion: 
" Justice Powell based a significant portion of his diversity rationale in the decision on the First Amendment, which has been significantly emphasized by later scholars.{{cite journal |last1=Boddie |first1=Elise |title=The Indignities of Color Blindness |journal=UCLA L. REV. DISCOURSE |date=2016 |volume=64}
Cf2022 (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have page numbers you're relying on in the Feingold article?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , can you chip in, please? Ferkijel (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, of course! I'm sorry I missed this comment earlier. The citation references pages 63 and 66 of the Feingold article. I've since added the pages to the citation. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Cf2022 (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Ferkjl (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Proposed Changes 

message: There are five images used in this article and three of them depict or relate to anti-Bakke protests. The fact that there are three seems redundant enough for such a relatively brief article -- the flyer is especially unnecessary -- but it also seems to insinuate an NPOV slant toward opposition to the court's decision. I think the image selection should be reconsidered. 2600:8801:710D:EA00:ED4C:E1FF:500F:7399 (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Those were the images I could find that were in the public domain when I researched at the University of California library. They are each worth including. If there are others in the public domain or with an appropriate license, feel free to add. Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images