See attachment 2: | American history

sweetwk7.2.docx MUST BE ORIGINAL WORK. PowerPoint (7-8 slides) with speaker notes for presentation. Minimum of 2 scholarly sources. I will attach last week’s assignment that this assignment is building on. Due 4/17/25 Assignment Instructions This is Part II of the assignment you submitted in Week 6. Using the case outline (Part I: How the Courts Address or Respect Our Rights as Citizens) you submitted in Week 6, prepare and submit a presentation, either a narrated PowerPoint, a Kaltura Video, or some other format approved by your instructor.  Verify the presentation format with your instructor before starting work on this assignment. The presentation will include: · Name the case · Discuss the facts of the case · Discuss the history of the case (what laws or legal action was taken) · Discuss the issues or the facts of the case and legal questions the court must decide · Discuss if the court's decision or holdings were for the plaintiff or the defendant and the reasons for the decision. · Discuss the concurring and dissenting opinions from the judge or if a jury trial, the jury · References slide with a minimum of 2 scholarly sources. Important: In this assignment, you are expected to elaborate on the points you made in the prior assignment in Week 6. This assignment will be graded on your strength to elaborate and explain the facts of the case, proper use of visual aids, good narration, presentation of the case, and how well you stick to the case. Do not copy-paste the outline into this and call it complete. Requirements · Length: The presentation should be 7-8 slides long if using PowerPoint excluding the title and reference slide. · Font should not be smaller than size 16-point   · Parenthetical in-text citations included and formatted in APA style   · Title/Introduction slide required · References slide minimum of 2 scholarly sources in addition to textbook if cited) · Use speaker notes to elaborate on the content on the slides. RegentsofCaliforniavBakke2.docx 1 Regents of California v Bakke Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Professor’s Name Course Name Due Date Summary of the Case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) included white candidate Allan Bakke, who was twice refused admission to UC Davis Medical School. The school's unique admissions procedure examined minority applicants individually and with lower academic standards to secure 16 of 100 places. Despite having better test scores and grades than minority applicants, Bakke argued the program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids racial discrimination in federally financed programs (Cornell Law School, 2020). The California Supreme Court declared the quota system unconstitutional and ordered Bakke's admission, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to settle the affirmative action argument. The Supreme Court split, with no majority opinion. Justice Lewis Powell's landmark opinion declared racial quotas unlawful but permitted race to be used in admissions to encourage diversity. The Court upheld Bakke's admission because UC Davis failed to argue that his acceptance would have been impossible without the quota. This combined victory overturned racial objections and allowed institutions to seek diversity via holistic assessments, changing affirmative action policy worldwide. Case Outline Title: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Facts of the Case: UC Davis Medical School has a standard and minority admissions program with 16 seats. Even underprivileged non-minorities were barred from the special program due to inferior academic levels. White applicant Allan Bakke, who scored better than minority applicants, was refused twice (Cornell Law School, 2020). His lawsuit claimed racial exclusion violated constitutional and statutory rights. History of the Case: Bakke sued in California state court, which annulled the quota but refused him admittance. Bakke was admitted after the California Supreme Court upheld the Equal Protection Clause violation. The Supreme Court evaluated the case to resolve federal affirmative action interpretation disputes. Legal Questions: The Court considered whether (1) racial quotas in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI and (2) race may ever play a role in admissions. Decision or Holdings: The Court declared strong racial quotas illegal because they eliminated applicants exclusively based on race. Race was allowed to be a “plus factor” in holistic evaluations to achieve diversity, a compelling state interest. Bakke was admitted because UC Davis could not establish he would have been denied without the quota. Verdict and Opinion: The 5-4 ruling included several viewpoints. Powell's majority decision (joined by four justices) opposed quotas but supported diversity. Justices Brennan, Marshall, White, and Blackmun supported race-conscious admissions to correct previous prejudice. Dissenters (Stevens, Burger, Stewart, Rehnquist) emphasized Title VI's ban on racial exclusion (Cornell Law School, 2020). The ruling overturned the quota, accepted Bakke, and allowed race to influence admissions. Conclusion Bans on quotas and race-conscious admissions changed affirmative action, combining diversity aims with constitutional protections. Universities fostered diversity without racial divides by considering race and other aspects in holistic evaluations. Medical schools and other organizations in California should rectify past inequalities while retaining merit-based standards. However, “reverse discrimination” and race-based fairness arguments continued after the verdict. Significantly, it maintained affirmative action's role in promoting educational diversity while limiting exclusion. Despite criticism that it promoted racial biases, advocates applauded its sophisticated approach to equality. In 2023, the Supreme Court invalidated race-conscious admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC. Bakke's influence lasted decades, highlighting the conflict between restitution and justice. The lawsuit showed Californians how the state handled difficult civil rights matters, albeit its advantages were disputed. References Cornell Law School. (2020). Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/regents_of_the_university_of_california_v_bakke_(1978)