Talk:Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

1 Relevant Content
2 Alleged bias in article
3 GPA
4 6-2 or 5-4
5 Scope

[edit] Relevant Content

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)

[edit] Alleged bias in article

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)

Hi! Here are the things that I specifically think aren't appropriate for Wikipedia, and why:
- "was denied admission despite being well qualified." "Well qualified" is a subjective claim.
- "they decided the would admit a minimum of 8 minority students, regardless of how qualified and competent the white students, also vying for admission, might have been." This suggests something about the fairness of the admission policy that I don't think is appropriate for Wikipedia. The encyclopedia entry should report on what the policy was and what the court decision was; it shouldn't make additional implications about whether the University was right.
- attempt to justify, ambiguous, they believed that, it was evident that -- these all editorialize about the University's motives in a particularly unverifiable way.
- The special admissions process had been set up so that no white applicant would ever qualify... To protect itself from accusations of racism... also make unverifiable claims about what the University's goals were.

Tim Pierce 18:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GPA

In order to apply to the school, an applicant had to have a minimum of over 2.5.

I assume the article is referring to GPA, but either way it needs clarification.

[edit] 6-2 or 5-4

The article states the decision was 6-2, and later states it was 5-4. I assume the decision was actually 5-4 because of the list of justices for and against, and because that adds to 9 justices. Furthermore the only sites i could find which mentioned a 6-2 decision in this case were wikipedia mirrors. 24.19.194.18