Question

how did the decision in regents of the university of california v. bakke affect individual rights?
○ it limited rights by ending racial quotas in admissions decisions.
○ it protected rights by allowing racial quotas in admissions decisions.
○ it limited rights by allowing race to be an admissions decision factor.
○ it protected rights by ending quotas but allowing race to be an admissions factor.

Explanation:

In the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case, the Supreme Court ruled that racial quotas in admissions (like setting aside a fixed number of seats for specific racial groups) were unconstitutional (ending quotas), but race could still be considered as one of the factors in the admissions process (protecting individual rights to fair consideration while avoiding rigid quotas). Let's analyze each option:

• Option 1: The decision didn't just limit rights by ending quotas; it also allowed race as a factor, so this is incomplete.
• Option 2: Racial quotas were struck down, so this is incorrect.
• Option 3: Allowing race as a factor was seen as a way to consider diversity, not just limiting rights, so this is wrong.
• Option 4: This correctly states that the decision ended racial quotas (which were seen as overly restrictive) but allowed race to be considered as one of the admissions factors (protecting the right to have a holistic review that could include race to promote diversity, while not mandating rigid quotas).

Answer:

D. It protected rights by ending quotas but allowing race to be an admissions factor.