Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Regents of the University of California v. Bakke/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

[edit]

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)'[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because… we think it meets the criteria. The Bakke decision had a huge impact although it did not actually, of itself do much, but it caused affirmative action to survive to live another day. Bakke himself got into med school, which was what he cared about. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning oppose.

  • No alt text on images.
That is not required. If you like, I will add them, if you will undertake to tweak them to your satisfaction.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason that the suggested format for WP:SCOTUS/SG articles was not followed? It would have simplified some of the following comments.
It did not entirely work. I looked at it and also at some FA articles on Supreme Court decisions. These mostly ignored any question of public interest or impact and treated the case in a vacuum. That is not possible with Bakke. So while we did the formatting with an eye to that, remember, the page says, vary as necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should add to that, that none of the law FAs I saw did much with the papers by the various justices in the Library of Congress. I suspect that is due to a lack of secondary sources using them.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entire article--WP:MOSLAW not followed. "Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority."
  • Although the primary source is available, it is not cited
I take it you mean the Court's opinion. Alright. I'll put in parallel cites where necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done through DeFunis, continuing to work on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede & Infobox.
  • The holding is not correct. The Court held "The judgment below is affirmed insofar as it orders [Bakke's] admission to Davis and invalidates [the university's] special admissions program, but is reversed insofar as it prohibits [the university] from taking race into account as a factor in its future admissions decisions" Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 436 U.S. 265, 267 (1978).
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decision section.
  • This is a plurality opinion. It is mentioned and wikilinked in the lede, and promptly forgotten. The fact that a plurality opinion does not set binding precedent needs to be covered.
That is addressed. While Bakke was technically a plurality opinion, it the question of whether it set precedent was addressed in Grutter. It did, just like Brennan said. That position has prevailed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put a clear mention of this fact and will look for and add a cite on the effect of a plurality decision. I had assumed people knew, but that's the lawyer in me.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who delivered the judgment of the court? Note that "judgment of the court" is a term of art identifying a plurality opinion.
  • Section is too short and does not outline the differences in the opinions of the various justices.
I've expanded re Powell, and will look at the other opinions later on today, though I do not wish to go into the same detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the two opinions written or joined by four justices, I do not think the individual justice opinions should be expanded as they are not very significant.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing language. Who joined with Justice Powell and for what purpose?
  • References.
  • The first citation to Bakke uses a short form citation, i.e. "Bakke, 438 U.S. at 277." The first time the case is cited should be long form, with subsequent citations being short form. In other words, the initial citation should read "Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 277 (1978)." Short form citations can follow.

I'll come back later to outline further concerns. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. If I can address them, I will. If you are not happy, please allow me to withdraw it and I will send it for a peer review, although I did and it sat uncommented for two weeks. I can call in some favors.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't withdraw it yet. I think that we can fix the minor issues that I've brought up so far, plus the ones I hadn't gotten to. I don't think we're at the withdrawing the nom point yet. GregJackP Boomer! 15:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not a problem, and thanks. I'd like to see this promoted, it is an important law article and despite my profession, I've done very little work on contemporary law issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will you consider striking the "leaning oppose" language now with these changes? I fear it may deter other reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, continued, leaning support.

  • Use of Latin terms. Cert. is not italicized at all, but all the amicus (amici) are italicized. I would recommend italicizing on the first use, then roman type thereafter, but whatever is chosen should be consistent.
I don't think certiorari should be linked, it is used enough that it has become part of the language. Our article certiorari, while slightly inconsistent, mostly does not italicize. If you grant that, it is consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave open, to get any other reviewer(s) to comment on it--I'm not so tied to it that I would oppose on that basis. GregJackP Boomer! 03:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amicus curiae is wikilinked twice.
Delinked the second usage. I put in the Rita Clancy passage only yesterday, because the clippings file I consulted at Cal-Berkeley made such a point of it, that even though she is utterly forgotten, it's worth mentioning she got a year ahead of Bakke.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth paragraph of Acceptance and briefs section has one cite for the entire paragraph--it probably needs additional cites to support the material.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not required, but a nice touch if available, consider linking to the oral argument that is normally available at Oyez.
It is, as is the announcement of the opinions. Linked as EL.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference footnotes - some end with a period, some do not. Due to the templates, I would go with a period, but whichever way is chosen, it needs to be consistent.
Dotted notes.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those. I was uncertain on certiorari, I'm of the opinion that it has migrated into the English language and does not need italics, whereas amicus curiae has not. Our article, certiorari is a bit inconsistent but generally leaves cert. unitalicized. I'm easy on this one, though, if you feel strongly about it. I will return and complete later in the day, got to do some stuff now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got everything. You may want to check. Thanks. You've improved the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure on certiorari either. I lean the other way, but not so much as to sink an FAC over it. I left it open to see what other reviewers thought. GregJackP Boomer! 03:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. OK, I'll be guided by what other reviewers think. I really appreciate your picky but clueful review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (own work, CC, PD-USGov, PD-US-no-notice). Sources and authors provided.

Thank you for that. The images were all last minute and it's good to know we did it right.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Quadell

A very strong candidate. Thorough and well-sourced. But I have a couple of questions about the references and bibliography.

  • Some references (e.g. 34 or 53) refer to "Complete Case Record". Do those refer to the third entry in the bibliography? Another reference refers to "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke" (10). Do those refer to the same bibliographic entry? If so, they should be consistent.
The case record (yes, the third entry) is a bound and printed version of the various papers in the case, the Supreme Court's opinion of course, and the ones from the California courts, and the the briefs (at the Supreme Court level only) from the parties and the almost sixty friend of the court briefs. Add to that a bunch of briefs on the special briefing on Title VI the Court ordered, and you'll see why it occupies three rather impressively-thick volumes. You see, although the record is available to the public, getting a copy in the pre-internet age would have been ten cents a page. So in major cases, like this, that publisher would publish the record, and libraries and law offices who wanted it would buy them. I viewed the copy in the Cal-Berkeley Education/Psychology library.
Now, the other thing is, footnote 10, is the published opinion of the Court. This is in the format WikiProject Law wants it (see above) wants it. The full case name in Blue Book format on first use, thereafter, just the one word short form of the case (usually the petitioner's name, but in this case by universal custom the respondent's). I've varied a bit from the formal format, I'd have to check, but I don't think we'd spell out "University" The numbers and letters after the case name are the volume and page number of the United States Reports, which is how Supreme Court cases are conventionally cited (note the last one is not, as that volume of the United States Reports is not yet out. In the interim, again by the Blue Book, which governs how lawyers cite sources and seems to have been adopted by WP:LAW in practice, we use the Supreme Court Reports. Probably more than you wanted to know.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed information! – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bibliography contains four books and two journal entries. But the references contain four more books, and many additional journal entries. There doesn't seem to be a clear reason. Would you be willing to move all books and journal entries down into the "bibliography", for consistency's sake?
If a source is used only briefly or not heavily relied upon, I prefer to put it in the references for the convenience of the reader who is off to the library to grab a handful of references on Bakke. I want him to have a greater chance of striking gold, if you get my drift.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, for the Ball and Schwartz sources that makes sense. But consider some of the others in the (small) bibliography. Stevens: cited once, one page used. Wilkinson: cited twice, two pages used. Epstein & Knight: cited twice, four pages used. And compare those to some sources not in the bibliography: O'Neill (cited five times, six pages used); Dreyfuss (cited 5 times, 2 pages used); and Schulman (cited 4 times, 4 pages used). It still looks arbitrary to me. – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Your thoughts on the newspaper articles?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion? I'd just as soon leave newspaper articles out of the bibliography. – Quadell (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, I made a very few minor reference formatting changes. Besides these, the references all look good.
    • I've read the article again this morning, and I still can't find any problems worth mentioning involving the clarity, grammar, or organization of the article. It's admirably neutral and balanced, and seems reasonably complete. I don't have any opinion on the italicizing of legal terms. – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I am glad you think well of it. I will move those journal articles to biblio this morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your consideration and kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cirt, got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry I never managed to get together with you on that Hill thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no problems, hopefully we can work together on something else in the future related to Freedom of speech! :) — Cirt (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: An interesting and important case. A few matters need attention:

Lead
  • The first paragraph is a somwehat confused summary of the main aspects of the case. First sentence fine, but the information in the second sentence needs reworking and simplifying along the lines of: "However, the decision ruled that specific 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."
  • It needs to be made clearer that the second paragraph summarise the position that existed prior to the Bakke case. Maybe just add the words "Before the case..." to the the beginning of the paragraph.
State of the law
  • How much of the first paragraph is relevant to this case? For example, the information on school children and busing seems somewhat removed from the topic.
It all goes to the question of what schools are required to do in the interest of diversity, and what they may do.
  • I don't question the general purpose, it's the level of detail required to make the point. Specifically, the last two sentences of the paragraph seem superflouos, tending to take the reader's attention away from the thrust of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When first mentioning the U.C.-Davis affirmative action program you should say something about the "sixteen" quota. For example, did other college programs have similar, comparable quotas or was this an isolated case?
I think people should know the situation on education law prior to the Bakke case. I am inclined to let it stand, though I certainly will be influenced by what reviewers may say.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this answers my previous point. I am now suggesting that, when you first mention U.C.-Davis's affirmative action program you include a mention of the 16 quota, which was after all the most controversial factor in the program. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allan Bakke section
  • UK readers won't know what "GPA" means, nor be able to interpret the scores. A footnote would help.
I will pipe to grading (education)
  • "This may well have cost him admission" – I assume "this" refers to his lateness, not to his mother's illness, which is how it reads?
  • "Only one black student and six Latinos were admitted under the regular admissions program in that time from, ..." The phrasing "in that time from" doesn't make sense.
  • "Latino" should be linked
  • Still unlinked
Lower court history
  • The term "set-asides", as shorthand for the places reserved to minorities, should be clarified at first mention.
  • "The California Supreme Court was considered one of the most liberal appellate courts, and it was widely expected that it would find the program to be legal." These are rather broad statements which are not supported by sources.
It is taken from the Ball book, which is cited as a source. It was not practical to separate out text between the sources.
It would be possible to add the Ball pp. 58–60 ref to the end of the sentence I've quoted – but I'm not insisting on this Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I do that, then people assume everything from the last footnote on is ONLY from Ball, which is not the case.
Acceptance and briefs
  • "The university requested that the Supreme Court stay the order..." As several Supreme Courts have been mentioned in the article, perhapd clarify that this is a reference to the US Supreme Court.
  • "—the university had not introduced evidence of past discrimination, or of bias in the MCAT". You have lost me here; what evidence were the civil rights groups seeking?
I've tweaked that. Bakke was basically tried on facts that were almost agreed. The civil rights groups felt that the university should have included evidence of pas discrimination, for example against Chinese, at the university in general, not just the Davis medical school. They also felt that the MCAT like other standardized tests was discriminatory against those not from wealthy white culture. "Regatta" was, I believe, the classic example of a term supposedly found on the test that someone from the 'hood would not know.
  • "The parties duly filed their briefs." That may be taken as read, surely?
I don't disagree, but it provides a useful way of moving the timeline forward in the article. If not, the events in the rest of the paragraph which are related in time to the briefing would need either dating or to be related to something else.
  • "...early drafts of the brief both supported affirmative action and indicated that the program should be struck down and Bakke admitted." Eh? This is the US government's brief, supporting both sides of the case? I can't make sense of it; is clarification possible?
Affirmative action was not yet a uniform Democratic stance. Some, especially Jews, did not like it, preferring a strict merit-based approach, in part because of the Jewish experience with "quotas" as limits. Tweaked a bit.
Argument and deliberation
  • I'm afraid I don't get the "joke" in the first paragraph – legal humour? Harvard humour? – but never mind. The only significant point in this section is the use of the word "affirm" in: "...the lower court decision would be affirmed in part..." I think this should be "confirmed", to avoid the more general meaning of the word "affirm" in the article.
I think I have a "HARVARD SUCKS" button from my student days in a drawer somewhere. They generally did, although they now use their cachet to attract basketball players. Mr. Cox, however, would only know that they have traditionally (at least after 1930 or so) had little athletic success. Obviously he would have been well-advised not to give up his day job.
Indeed. My real (very minor) point, however, was the use of the word "affirmed" later in the section, and a suggestion that this be changed to "confirmed", meaning essentially the same, to avoid possible confusion.
Affirmed is a term of art. Supreme Court justices are confirmed by the Senate, then they affirm lower court decisions, sometimes. That is legal terminology that cannot be synonymed. A law student consulting the article would wonder why we avoided the obvious legal term.
Decision
  • One small punc issue: I think after "The justices penned six opinions" a semicolon, not a comma + and, is required.
Powell's opinion
  • The section is a little dense in legal language, and not always easy to follow. By way of simplication, could some of Powell's preliminary thinking be omitted? E.g. could the section effsctively begin with the third sentence: "Powell determined that the affirmative program was not simply a goal…"?
Sorry about the legal phrasing, and if any of it is too heavy, I will alter it. But I find it is best just to use the terminology rather than to dance around it. I don't think the TItle VI should be deleted, as it is important if not sexy, so I've split the paragraph there.
OK – it makes more sense when you read it slowly.
You are seeing examples of how I would write in a professional capacity.
  • Should he suddenly become "Justice Powell" in the second paragraph?
Just an alteration from the eternal drone of "Powell, Powell, Powell". As such things have been mentioned in reviews in the past, I try to be proactive.
  • The following long sentence has grammar issues: "He cited past cases that found that when an individual was entirely foreclosed from opportunities or benefits provided by the government and enjoyed by those of a different background or race, that this was a suspect classification". I think the third "that" is one too many.
  • I'm not sure that "concur in" works; "concur" means "agree".
The quote from Stevens? Not sure that I see a problem. Stevens agreed that Bakke should be admitted, so he agreed with the part of the SCOTUS opinion that affirmed the California Supreme Court. He disagreed with the rest.
Sorry, I wasn't questioning that, merely the use of the word "in" in the setence beginning "In a part of the opinion concurred in by Chief Justice Burger and his allies...". I think you "concur", possibly "concur with", but you don't "concur in. Maybe US usage is different; the point is trivial so let's leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is US law usage, note that the justices "concurred in the judgment".
Other opinions
  • "In verbally introducing their opinion in the Supreme Court courtroom..." Unnecessary detail
It needs to be in there because that quote is not in the four-justice opinion and someone looking for it won't find it there. This is Brennan talking individually, not for the four justices.
  • "those justices" – is this referring to Brennan and his co-signatories?
Reaction
Minor, but "Bakke" has become "Allan Bakke" in the final paragraph
See above re Powell. Bakke is especially overused as he also names the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • "In 1996, Californians by initiative..." What does "by initiative" mean in this context?
  • "The regents, to secure a diverse student body, implemented policies such as allowing the top 4% of students in California high schools guaranteed admission to the University of California System". It is not at all clear how the poolicy quoted would contribute to a "diverse" student body. "Elite", more likely.
In many high schools in California in the inner city, that 4% will be heavily minority. Likely someone at the edge of the 4 percent at some inner city high school might not be in the top twenty percent at a public high school in an affluent area.

I will try and add a sources review in the next day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate that. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few points outstanding above. I am proceeding with the sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The last bullet statement on "diverse" v. "elite" - no change is needed, diverse is the correct statement for the United States. By accepting the top 4% of all high schools, including inner-city, high minority schools, the number of minorities gaining admittance increases. You are using the correct verbiage and should not change that point. GregJackP Boomer! 19:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but the point needs clarifying in the text, as you have done here. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will review sources and see if something can be added that will illuminate things for those in need of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a brief statement, but would welcome comments from reviewers on this point.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the brief addition is sufficient. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think I've addressed the remaining individual and supplemental points, as well as those in the peer review below. I did think about the legal jargon and did look at FAs on Supreme Court cases. Perhaps I am too close to the picture, but I don't see anything out of line.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review All sources of appropriate qulity and reliability. A couple of minor format points:

  • Ref 94 says "O'Neill"; source says "O'Neil"
  • Ref 107: in a different format – not templated.

That's all. Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I still have a handful of minor concerns, insufficient in my view to withhold support:

  • I don't fully understand why you don't mention the "16" quota in the second para of the "State of the law" section, where you outline U.C.-Davis's affirmative action policy – of which the quota was surely a principal factor.
Oh. Because the number wasn't always the same. It rose from 8 to 16 when the class size doubled, I believe in 1971. As Justice Powell was kind enough to give the details in his opinion, I have added it.
  • You seem resistant to linking Latino; is there a reason for this?
Just an oversight. My time has been rushed the last few days.
  • Ref 107 format still looks wrong.
It seems identical, format-wise to 102. Can you point out the exact issue?

I'd be grateful if you commented specifically on these, even if you don't think any action is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have, you should know by now that although I have no pretentious to be Homer, I do nod from time to time. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have always taken your Homeric qualities as read, and shall continue to do so despite your modest protestations. The ref 107 to which I referred earlier became 108 when you added a new ref yesterday. The point at issue with 108, scarcely a major concern, is that unlike the others it does not use a template and thus has a slightly different format. Men have been shot for less, of course, but it's a matter for you. This is a revealing article which deserves to be read. Pity it doesn't have a more welcoming title, but you can't do much about that. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words. I did not template any of the case names, which was the condition of the article as I got it. I did spot a couple of minor inconsistencies in linking and so forth, and I will clear those up. I think the article will come in handy when a law student realises he is next to be called upon, and surreptitiously obtains the facts of the case from us. I do not remember Bakke coming up in my Con Law class, but memory is fading of the law school experience, thankfully.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke/archive1&oldid=863145768"