Question

i do not agree that the petitioner's (uc of davis) admissions program violates the constitution because … i do not believe that anyone can truly look into america's past and still find that a remedy for the effects of the past is impermissible.—justice marshall, from the dissenting opinion in university of california v. bakke how does this excerpt reveal a continued clash between conservative and liberal ideology in the courts? the writer disagrees with the majority ruling that the defendant was a victim of reverse discrimination. the writer disagrees with the majority ruling that affirmative action was being implemented in a fair manner. the writer agrees with the majority ruling that the idea of reverse discrimination is an invalid claim. the writer agrees with the majority ruling that that the school should change its affirmative action policy.

Answer 1

Justice Marshall's dissenting opinion in the University of California v. Bakke case expresses a liberal ideology that supports affirmative action as necessary to remedy past discrimination, opposing the majority ruling that saw the admissions program as reverse discrimination.

Step-by-step explanation:

The excerpt from Justice Marshall's dissenting opinion in University of California v. Bakke voices a perspective that is sympathetic to affirmative action measures, underscoring a central ideological divide between conservative and liberal viewpoints regarding race-conscious admissions policies. He disagrees with the Court's decision that the University of California's admissions program constituted reverse discrimination and maintains that remedial programs are necessary to address the lingering effects of past discrimination. This contrasts with the more conservative view that such programs violate the principle of equal protection by establishing an unfair advantage based on race.

Answer 2

This excerpt reveals a continued clash between conservative and liberal ideology in the courts because according to the writer he agrees with the majority ruling that the idea of reverse discrimination is an invalid claim, as he said in the excerpt: "I do not believe that anyone can truly look into America's past and still find that a remedy for the effects of the past is impermissible.".