Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

http://dbpedia.org/resource/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke an entity of type: Thing

캘리포니아 주립대 대 바키 사건(University of California v. Bakke)은 미국 연방대법원의 유명 판례로 적극적 우대조치로써 인종이 대학입시에서 고려될 수 있는 요소임을 판시하였다. 단 특정 인종의 비율을 정해 놓은 는 위헌임을 선언하여 캘리포니아 주립대 데이비스 캠퍼스 의과대학원의 정책이 위법이라고 판시하였다. rdf:langString
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) involved a dispute of whether preferential treatment for minorities can reduce educational opportunities for whites without violating the Constitution. The case was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, were impermissible. rdf:langString
加州大学董事会诉巴基案(Regents of the University of California v. Bakke), U.S. 265 (1978),是美国联邦最高法院裁决的一个里程碑式案件,支持了肯定性行动(又称平权法案),允许高校招生时将种族作为考量的多个因素之一。不过判决中也质疑了一些特定的程序,如加州大学戴维斯分校医学院每100个招生名额中要有16个少数族裔学生配额的规定是不受允许的。 虽然最高法院已经宣布学校中的种族隔离是非法的,并且下令校区采取措施确保种族融合,但由大学自愿采取的肯定性行动措施的合法性问题尚未得到解决。支持者认为需要有这样的措施来对过去的歧视加以弥补,而反对者则认为这样的措施是非法的,违反了美利坚合众国宪法第十四条修正案的平等保護條款。1974年时曾有一个(DeFunis v. Odegaard)上诉到最高法院,该案直接涉及的就是肯定性行动的合宪性问题,但最终法院以程序方面的原因驳回了案件。 rdf:langString
rdf:langString 캘리포니아 주립대 대 바키 사건
rdf:langString Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
rdf:langString 加州大学董事会诉巴基案
rdf:langString Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke
xsd:integer 169477
xsd:integer 1119113358
rdf:langString Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun
<second> 172800.0
<second> 17280.0
xsd:integer 265
xsd:integer 438
xsd:gMonthDay --10-12
xsd:integer 1977
rdf:langString Regents of the University of California v. Bakke,
xsd:gMonthDay --06-28
xsd:integer 1978
rdf:langString Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke
rdf:langString Bakke was ordered admitted to UC Davis Medical School, and the school's practice of reserving 16 seats for minority students was struck down. Judgment of the Supreme Court of California reversed insofar as it forbade the university from taking race into account in admissions.
rdf:langString Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
rdf:langString Powell
rdf:langString Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) involved a dispute of whether preferential treatment for minorities can reduce educational opportunities for whites without violating the Constitution. The case was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, were impermissible. Although the Supreme Court had outlawed segregation in schools by the Brown v. Board of Education decision and had ordered school districts to take steps to assure integration, the question of the legality of voluntary affirmative action programs initiated by universities remained unresolved. Proponents deemed such programs necessary to make up for past discrimination, while opponents believed they were illegal and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. An earlier case that the Supreme Court had taken in an attempt to address the issue, DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974), was dismissed on procedural grounds. Allan P. Bakke (/ˈbɑːkiː/), an engineer and former Marine officer, sought admission to medical school but was rejected for admission due in part to his age. Bakke was in his early 30s while applying and therefore considered too old by at least two institutions. After twice being rejected by the University of California, Davis, he brought suit in state court challenging the constitutionality of the school's affirmative action program. The California Supreme Court struck down the program as violative of the rights of White applicants and ordered Bakke admitted. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case amid wide public attention. The ruling on the case was highly fractured. The nine justices issued a total of six opinions. The judgment of the court was written by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.; two different blocs of four justices joined various parts of Powell's opinion. Finding diversity in the classroom to be a compelling state interest, Powell opined that affirmative action in general was allowed under the Constitution and the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nevertheless, UC Davis's program went too far for a majority of justices, and it was struck down and Bakke admitted. The practical effect of Bakke was that most affirmative action programs continued without change. Questions about whether the Bakke case was merely a plurality opinion or binding precedent were answered in 2003 when the court upheld Powell's position in a majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger.
rdf:langString 캘리포니아 주립대 대 바키 사건(University of California v. Bakke)은 미국 연방대법원의 유명 판례로 적극적 우대조치로써 인종이 대학입시에서 고려될 수 있는 요소임을 판시하였다. 단 특정 인종의 비율을 정해 놓은 는 위헌임을 선언하여 캘리포니아 주립대 데이비스 캠퍼스 의과대학원의 정책이 위법이라고 판시하였다.
rdf:langString 加州大学董事会诉巴基案(Regents of the University of California v. Bakke), U.S. 265 (1978),是美国联邦最高法院裁决的一个里程碑式案件,支持了肯定性行动(又称平权法案),允许高校招生时将种族作为考量的多个因素之一。不过判决中也质疑了一些特定的程序,如加州大学戴维斯分校医学院每100个招生名额中要有16个少数族裔学生配额的规定是不受允许的。 虽然最高法院已经宣布学校中的种族隔离是非法的,并且下令校区采取措施确保种族融合,但由大学自愿采取的肯定性行动措施的合法性问题尚未得到解决。支持者认为需要有这样的措施来对过去的歧视加以弥补,而反对者则认为这样的措施是非法的,违反了美利坚合众国宪法第十四条修正案的平等保護條款。1974年时曾有一个(DeFunis v. Odegaard)上诉到最高法院,该案直接涉及的就是肯定性行动的合宪性问题,但最终法院以程序方面的原因驳回了案件。 艾伦·P·巴基(Allan P. Bakke)是一位工程师及前美国海军陆战队军官,他打算进入医学院就读但数次遭拒,部分是因为他已年过三旬,对于新入学者来说年纪有些太大。两次被拒绝后,巴基将加州大学戴维斯分校医学院告上了州法庭,加利福尼亚州最高法院(California Supreme Court)判决医学院败诉,其政策侵犯了白人申请者的权利,并下令接受巴基入学。联邦最高法院之后受理了这个引起公众广泛关注的案件。 最高法院的众位大法官对这起案件存在显著的分歧,9名大法官一共给出了6份意见。法院的裁决由大法官劉易斯·鮑威爾执笔,来自两个不同阵营的4名法官分别赞成他意见中的不同部分。鲍威尔认为,政府有强制性的义务来保障课堂上的多样性,所以肯定性行动政策通常是合宪的,并且也不会违反《1964年民权法案》。但是加州大学戴维斯分校所制订的为少数族裔强制分配16个名额的政策在多数大法官看来都有些过份,因此法院裁决该校应该接受巴基。这一案件的实际效果就是大部分肯定性行动政策继续得以不受影响地执行。但对于这个案件判决究竟是一个有约束力的先例,亦或只是一个複數意見書的问题仍然存在争议,一直到2003年的格鲁特诉布林格案(Grutter v. Bollinger)中,最高法院以多数意见维持了鲍威尔的立场,这个问题才得到了解答。
rdf:langString Powell
rdf:langString White
rdf:langString Stevens
rdf:langString Marshall
rdf:langString Blackmun
rdf:langString Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun
rdf:langString Burger, Stewart, Rehnquist
rdf:langString White
rdf:langString Powell
xsd:nonNegativeInteger 57768

data from the linked data cloud