Regents of the University of California v. Bakke familiarizes students with the landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of affirmative action. In 1973 and 1974, Allan Bakke, a white male, was denied admission to the medical school at the University of California in Davis, despite being well qualified. Bakke filed suit, claiming racial discrimination. In a closely divided 1978 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of programs giving advantage to minorities, but denied quota systems in college admissions. They ruled the UC medical school had, by maintaining a 16-percent minority quota, discriminated against Bakke. Allan Bakke was later admitted to the school, and graduated in 1992. Here, Professor Tim McNeese, who is also a consulting historian for the History Channel's Risk Takers, History Makers series, explains affirmative action and the background behind this lawsuit, as well as the controversy caused by the Court's decision.

In 1973 and 1974, the University of California, Davis, denied admission to applicant Allan Bakke. He decided to challenge the state university's use of affirmative action, a program that allowed the school to consider racial background as a qualification for acceptance. Although the policy aimed to help disadvantaged groups gain access to competitive higher education institutions, Bakke and his attorneys claimed it often resulted in discrimination against other groups. Your students will explore the complexities of the debates over affirmative action, analyze the legal justifications from the legal system's highest authorities, and ultimately be able to craft their own understandings and arguments surrounding this policy.

Examines the law and politics surrounding the Bakee case; a case claiming reverse discrimnation, considered by many as the most important civil rights decision since the end of segregation.

An Introduction to Constitutional Law teaches the narrative of constitutional law as it has developed historically and provides the essential background to understand how this foundational body of law has come to be what it is today. This multimedia experience combines a book and video series to engage students more directly in the study of constitutional law. All students—even those unfamiliar with American history—will garner a firm understanding of how constitutional law has evolved. An eleven-hour online video library brings the Supreme Court’s most important decisions to life. Videos are enriched by photographs, maps, and audio from the Supreme Court. The book and videos are accessible for all levels: law school, college, high school, home school, and independent study. Students can read and watch these materials before class to prepare for lectures or study after class to fill in any gaps in their notes. And, come exam time, students can binge-watch the entire canon of constitutional law in about twelve hours.

This book will consist of seven or more essays, critical in different ways of racial "diversity" preferences in American higher education. Unlike many more conventional books on the subject, which are essentially apologies for racial reverse discrimination, this volume forthrightly exposes the corrosive effects of identity politics on college and university life.

In the process of balancing ideals of race and gender equality with competing notions of colorblindness and meritocracy, they even borrowed the language of the civil rights era to make far-reaching claims about equality, justice, and citizenship in their anti-affirmative action rhetoric. Deslippe traces this conflict through compelling case studies of real people and real jobs. He asks what the introduction of affirmative action meant to the careers and livelihoods of Seattle steelworkers, New York asbestos handlers, St. Louis firemen, Detroit policemen, City University of New York academics, and admissions councilors at the University of Washington Law School. Through their experiences, Deslippe examines the diverse reactions to affirmative action, concluding that workers had legitimate grievances against its hiring and promotion practices.