document_title: Hindu

question_text: what is the meaning of hindu in arabic dictionary

text: Hindu

text: Etymology

text: The word Hindu is derived from the Indo-Aryan[21] and Sanskrit[21][5] word Sindhu, which means "a large body of water", covering "river, ocean".[22][c] It was used as the name of the Indus river and also referred to its tributaries. The actual term 'hindu' first occurs, states Gavin Flood, as "a Persian geographical term for the people who lived beyond the river Indus (Sanskrit: Sindhu)",[5] more specifically in the 6th-century BCE inscription of Darius I.[23] The Punjab region, called Sapta Sindhava in the Vedas, is called Hapta Hindu in Zend Avesta. The 6th-century BCE inscription of Darius I mentions the province of Hi[n]dush, referring to northwestern India.[23][24][25] The people of India were referred to as Hinduvān (Hindus) and hindavī was used as the adjective for Indian in the 8th century text Chachnama.[25] The term 'Hindu' in these ancient records is an ethno-geographical term and did not refer to a religion.[5][26] The Arabic equivalent Al-Hind likewise referred to the country of India.[27][23]

text: Among the earliest known records of 'Hindu' with connotations of religion may be in the 7th-century CE Chinese text Record of the Western Regions by the Buddhist scholar Xuanzang. Xuanzang uses the transliterated term In-tu whose "connotation overflows in the religious" according to Arvind Sharma.[23] While Xuanzang suggested that the term refers to the country named after the moon, another Buddhist scholar I-tsing contradicted the conclusion saying that In-tu was not a common name for the country.[25]

text: Al-Biruni's 11th-century text Tarikh Al-Hind, and the texts of the Delhi Sultanate period use the term 'Hindu', where it includes all non-Islamic people such as Buddhists, and retains the ambiguity of being "a region or a religion".[23] The 'Hindu' community occurs as the amorphous 'Other' of the Muslim community in the court chronicles, according to Romila Thapar.[28] Wilfred Cantwell Smith notes that 'Hindu' retained its geographical reference initially: 'Indian', 'indigenous, local', virtually 'native'. Slowly, the Indian groups themselves started using the term, differentiating themselves and their "traditional ways" from those of the invaders.[29]

text: The text Prithviraj Raso, by Chanda Baradai, about the 1192 CE defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan at the hands of Muhammad Ghori, is full of references to "Hindus" and "Turks", and at one stage, says "both the religions have drawn their curved swords;" however, the date of this text is unclear and considered by most scholars to be more recent.[30] In Islamic literature, 'Abd al-Malik Isami's Persian work, Futuhu's-salatin, composed in the Deccan in 1350, uses the word 'hindi'  to mean Indian in the ethno-geographical sense and the word 'hindu'  to mean 'Hindu' in the sense of a follower of the Hindu religion".[30] The poet Vidyapati's poem Kirtilata contrasts the cultures of Hindus and Turks (Muslims) in a city and concludes "The Hindus and the Turks live close together; Each makes fun of the other's religion (dhamme)."[31] One of the earliest uses of word 'Hindu' in religious context in a European language (Spanish), was the publication in 1649 by Sebastiao Manrique.[12]

text: Other prominent mentions of 'Hindu' include the epigraphical inscriptions from Andhra Pradesh kingdoms who battled military expansion of Muslim dynasties in the 14th century, where the word 'Hindu' partly implies a religious identity in contrast to 'Turks' or Islamic religious identity.[32] The term Hindu was later used occasionally in some Sanskrit texts such as the later Rajataranginis of Kashmir (Hinduka, c. 1450) and some 16th- to 18th-century Bengali Gaudiya Vaishnava texts, including Chaitanya Charitamrita and Chaitanya Bhagavata. These texts used it to contrast Hindus from Muslims who are called Yavanas (foreigners) or Mlecchas (barbarians), with the 16th-century Chaitanya Charitamrita text and the 17th-century Bhakta Mala text using the phrase "Hindu dharma".[10]

text: Terminology

text: Medieval-era usage (8th to 18th century)

text: One of the earliest but ambiguous uses of the word Hindu is, states Arvind Sharma, in the 'Brahmanabad settlement' which Muhammad ibn Qasim made with non-Muslims after the Arab invasion of northwestern Sindh region of India, in 712 CE. The term 'Hindu' meant people who were non-Muslims, and it included Buddhists of the region.[33] In the 11th-century text of Al Biruni, Hindus are referred to as "religious antagonists" to Islam, as those who believe in rebirth, presents them to hold a diversity of beliefs, and seems to oscillate between Hindus holding a centralist and pluralist religious views.[33] In the texts of Delhi Sultanate era, states Sharma, the term Hindu remains ambiguous on whether it means people of a region or religion, giving the example of Ibn Battuta's explanation of the name "Hindu Kush" for a mountain range in Afghanistan. It was so called, wrote Ibn Battuta, because many Indian slaves died there of snow cold, as they were marched across that mountain range. The term Hindu there is ambivalent and could mean geographical region or religion.[34]

text: The term Hindu appears in the texts from the Mughal Empire era. It broadly refers to non-Muslims. Pashaura Singh states, "in Persian writings, Sikhs were regarded as Hindu in the sense of non-Muslim Indians".[35] Jahangir, for example, called the Sikh Guru Arjan a Hindu:[36]

text: There was a Hindu named Arjan in Gobindwal on the banks of the Beas River. Pretending to be a spiritual guide, he had won over as devotees many simple-minded Indians and even some ignorant, stupid Muslims by broadcasting his claims to be a saint. [...] When Khusraw stopped at his residence, [Arjan] came out and had an interview with [Khusraw]. Giving him some elementary spiritual precepts picked up here and there, he made a mark with saffron on his forehead, which is called qashqa in the idiom of the Hindus and which they consider lucky. [...]

text: Colonial-era usage (18th to 20th century)

text: During the colonial era, the term Hindu had connotations of native religions of India, that is religions other than Christianity and Islam.[38] In early colonial era Anglo-Hindu laws and British India court system, the term Hindu referred to people of all Indian religions and two non-Indian religions:

text: The colonial project was itself undermined by its own constitutive contradictions since many of these laws were no more intrinsic to Indian society than the proposed meld of English and Indian systems. (...) The application of laws derived from Sanskrit classical texts leveled the community of Hindus to include all those who were not Muslims or Christians, and it absorbed under the category of "Hindu" both outcastes and members of religions as diverse as Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism.

text: The 20th-century colonial laws of British India segregated people's rights by their religion, evolving to provide Muslims with Sharia law, Christians, Jews and Parsis of British India with their own religious laws. The British government created a compendium of religious laws for Hindus, and the term 'Hindu' in these colonial 'Hindu laws', decades before India's independence, applied to Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.[13]

text: Beyond the stipulations of British law, colonial orientalists and particularly the influential Asiatick Researches founded in the 18th century, later called The Asiatic Society, initially identified just two religions in India – Islam, and Hinduism. These orientalists included all Indian religions such as Buddhism as a subgroup of Hinduism in the 18th century.[3] These texts called followers of Islam as Mohamedans, and all others as Hindus. The text, by the early 19th century, began dividing Hindus into separate groups, for chronology studies of the various beliefs. Among the earliest terms to emerge were Seeks and their College (later spelled Sikhs by Charles Wilkins), Boudhism (later spelled Buddhism), and in the 9th volume of Asiatick Researches report on religions in India, the term Jainism received notice.[3]

text: According to Pennington, the terms Hindu and Hinduism were thus constructed for colonial studies of India. The various sub-divisions and separation of subgroup terms were assumed to be result of "communal conflict", and Hindu was constructed by these orientalists to imply people who adhered to "ancient default oppressive religious substratum of India", states Pennington.[3] Followers of other Indian religions so identified were later referred Buddhists, Sikhs or Jains and distinguished from Hindus, in an antagonistic two-dimensional manner, with Hindus and Hinduism stereotyped as irrational traditional and others as rational reform religions. However, these mid-19th-century reports offered no indication of doctrinal or ritual differences between Hindu and Buddhist, or other newly constructed religious identities.[3] These colonial studies, states Pennigton, "puzzled endlessly about the Hindus and intensely scrutinized them, but did not interrogate and avoided reporting the practices and religion of Mughal and Arabs in South Asia", and often relied on Muslim scholars to characterise Hindus.[3]

text: Contemporary usage

text: In contemporary era, the term Hindus are individuals who identify with one or more aspects of Hinduism, whether they are practising or non-practicing or Laissez-faire.[39] The term does not include those who identify with other Indian religions such as Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism or various animist tribal religions found in India such as Sarnaism.[40][41] The term Hindu, in contemporary parlance, includes people who accept themselves as culturally or ethnically Hindu rather than with a fixed set of religious beliefs within Hinduism.[1] One need not be religious in the minimal sense, states Julius Lipner, to be accepted as Hindu by Hindus, or to describe oneself as Hindu.[42]

text: Hindus subscribe to a diversity of ideas on spirituality and traditions, but have no ecclesiastical order, no unquestionable religious authorities, no governing body, nor a single foudning prophet; Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist.[43][44][45] Because of the wide range of traditions and ideas covered by the term Hinduism, arriving at a comprehensive definition is difficult.[5] The religion "defies our desire to define and categorize it".[46] A Hindu may, by his or her choice, draw upon ideas of other Indian or non-Indian religious thought as a resource, follow or evolve his or her personal beliefs, and still identify as a Hindu.[1]

text: In 1995, Chief Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar was quoted in an Indian Supreme Court ruling:[47][48]

text: Although Hinduism contains a broad range of philosophies, Hindus share philosophical concepts, such as but not limiting to dharma, karma, kama, artha, moksha and samsara, even if each subscribes to a diversity of views.[49] Hindus also have shared texts such as the Vedas with embedded Upanishads, and common ritual grammar (Sanskara (rite of passage)) such as rituals during a wedding or when a baby is born or cremation rituals.[50][51] Some Hindus go on pilgrimage to shared sites they consider spiritually significant, practice one or more forms of bhakti or puja, celebrate mythology and epics, major festivals, love and respect for guru and family, and other cultural traditions.[49][52]  A Hindu could:

text:
follow any of the Hindu schools of philosophy, such as Advaita (non-dualism), Vishishtadvaita  (non-dualism of the qualified whole), Dvaita (dualism), Dvaitadvaita (dualism with non-dualism), etc.[53][54]
follow a tradition centred on any particular form of the Divine, such as Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism, etc.[55]
practice any one of the various forms of yoga systems in order to achieve moksha – that is freedom in current life (jivanmukti) or salvation in after-life (videhamukti);[56]
practice bhakti or puja for spiritual reasons, which may be directed to one's guru or to a divine image.[57] A visible public form of this practice is worship before an idol or statue. Jeaneane Fowler states that non-Hindu observers often confuse this practice as "stone or idol-worship and nothing beyond it", while for many Hindus, it is an image which represents or is symbolic manifestation of a spiritual Absolute (Brahman).[57] This practice may focus on a metal or stone statue, or a photographic image, or a linga, or any object or tree (pipal) or animal (cow) or tools of one's profession, or sunrise or expression of nature or to nothing at all, and the practice may involve meditation, japa, offerings or songs.[57][58] Inden states that this practice means different things to different Hindus, and has been misunderstood, misrepresented as idolatry, and various rationalisations have been constructed by both Western and native Indologists.[59]

text: Disputes

text: In the Constitution of India, the word "Hindu" has been used in some places to denote persons professing any of these religions: Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism or Sikhism.[60] This however has been challenged by the Sikhs[40][61] and by neo-Buddhists who were formerly Hindus.[62] According to Sheen and Boyle, Jains have not objected to being covered by personal laws termed under 'Hindu',[62] but Indian courts have acknowledged that Jainism is a distinct religion.[63]

text: The Republic of India is in the peculiar situation that the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly been called upon to define "Hinduism" because the Constitution of India, while it prohibits "discrimination of any citizen" on grounds of religion in article 15, article 30 foresees special rights for "All minorities, whether based on religion or language". As a consequence, religious groups have an interest in being recognised as distinct from the Hindu majority in order to qualify as a "religious minority". Thus, the Supreme Court was forced to consider the question whether Jainism is part of Hinduism in 2005 and 2006.

text: History of Hindu identity

text: Starting after the 10th century and particularly after the 12th century Islamic invasion, states Sheldon Pollock, the political response fused with the Indic religious culture and doctrines.[8] Temples dedicated to deity Rama were built from north to south India, and textual records as well as hagiographic inscriptions began comparing the Hindu epic of Ramayana to regional kings and their response to Islamic attacks. The Yadava king of Devagiri named Ramacandra, for example states Pollock, is described in a 13th-century record as, "How is this Rama to be described.. who freed Varanasi from the mleccha (barbarian, Turk Muslim) horde, and built there a golden temple of Sarngadhara".[8] Pollock notes that the Yadava king Ramacandra is described as a devotee of deity Shiva (Shaivism), yet his political achievements and temple construction sponsorship in Varanasi, far from his kingdom's location in the Deccan region, is described in the historical records in Vaishnavism terms of Rama, a deity Vishnu avatar.[8] Pollock presents many such examples and suggests an emerging Hindu political identity that was grounded in the Hindu religious text of Ramayana, one that has continued into the modern times, and suggests that this historic process began with the arrival of Islam in India.[64]

text: Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya has questioned the Pollock theory and presented textual and inscriptional evidence.[65] According to Chattopadhyaya, the Hindu identity and religious response to Islamic invasion and wars developed in different kingdoms, such as wars between Islamic Sultanates and the Vijayanagara kingdom (Karnataka), and Islamic raids on the kingdoms in Tamil Nadu. These wars were described not just using the mythical story of Rama from Ramayana, states Chattopadhyaya, the medieval records used a wide range of religious symbolism and myths that are now considered as part of Hindu literature.[9][65] This emergence of religious with political terminology began with the first Muslim invasion of Sindh in the 8th century CE, and intensified 13th century onwards. The 14th-century Sanskrit text, Madhuravijayam, a memoir written by Gangadevi, the wife of Vijayanagara prince, for example describes the consequences of war using religious terms,[66]

text:
I very much lament for what happened to the groves in Madhura,
The coconut trees have all been cut and in their place are to be seen,
  rows of iron spikes with human skulls dangling at the points,
In the highways which were once charming with anklets sound of beautiful women,
  are now heard ear-piercing noises of Brahmins being dragged, bound in iron-fetters,
The waters of Tambraparni, which were once white with sandal paste,
  are now flowing red with the blood of cows slaughtered by miscreants,
Earth is no longer the producer of wealth, nor does Indra give timely rains,
The God of death takes his undue toll of what are left lives if undestroyed by the Yavanas [Muslims],[67]
The Kali age now deserves deepest congratulations for being at the zenith of its power,
gone is the sacred learning, hidden is refinement, hushed is the voice of Dharma.

text: The historiographic writings in Telugu language from the 13th- and 14th-century Kakatiya dynasty period presents a similar "alien other (Turk)" and "self-identity (Hindu)" contrast.[68] Chattopadhyaya, and other scholars,[69] state that the military and political campaign during the medieval era wars in Deccan peninsula of India, and in the north India, were no longer a quest for sovereignty, they embodied a political and religious animosity against the "otherness of Islam", and this began the historical process of Hindu identity formation.[9][e]

text: Andrew Nicholson, in his review of scholarship on Hindu identity history, states that the vernacular literature of Bhakti movement sants from 15th to 17th century, such as Kabir, Anantadas, Eknath, Vidyapati, suggests that distinct religious identities, between Hindus and Turks (Muslims), had formed during these centuries.[71] The poetry of this period contrasts Hindu and Islamic identities, states Nicholson, and the literature vilifies the Muslims coupled with a "distinct sense of a Hindu religious identity".[71]

text: Hindu identity amidst other Indian religions

text: Scholars state that Hindu, Buddhist and Jain identities are retrospectively-introduced modern constructions.[15] Inscriptional evidence from the 8th century onwards, in regions such as South India, suggests that medieval era India, at both elite and folk religious practices level, likely had a "shared religious culture",[15] and their collective identities were "multiple, layered and fuzzy".[72] Even among Hinduism denominations such as Shaivism and Vaishnavism, the Hindu identities, states Leslie Orr, lacked "firm definitions and clear boundaries".[72]

text: Overlaps in Jain-Hindu identities have included Jains worshipping Hindu deities, intermarriages between Jains and Hindus, and medieval era Jain temples featuring Hindu religious icons and sculpture.[73][74][75] Beyond India, on Java island of Indonesia, historical records attest to marriages between Hindus and Buddhists, medieval era temple architecture and sculptures that simultaneously incorporate Hindu and Buddhist themes,[76] where Hinduism and Buddhism merged and functioned as "two separate paths within one overall system", according to Ann Kenney and other scholars.[77] Similarly, there is an organic relation of Sikhs to Hindus, states Zaehner, both in religious thought and their communities, and virtually all Sikhs' ancestors were Hindus.[78] Marriages between Sikhs and Hindus, particularly among Khatris, were frequent.[78] Some Hindu families brought up a son as a Sikh, and some Hindus view Sikhism as a tradition within Hinduism, even though the Sikh faith is a distinct religion.[78]

text: Julius Lipner states that the custom of distinguishing between Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs is a modern phenomena, but one that is a convenient abstraction.[14] Distinguishing Indian traditions is a fairly recent practice, states Lipner, and is the result of "not only Western preconceptions about the nature of religion in general and of religion in India in particular, but also with the political awareness that has arisen in India" in its people and a result of Western influence during its colonial history.[14]

text: Sacred geography

text: Scholars such as Fleming and Eck state that the post-Epic era literature from the 1st millennium CE amply demonstrate that there was a historic concept of the Indian subcontinent as a sacred geography, where the sacredness was a shared set of religious ideas. For example, the twelve Jyotirlingas of Shaivism and fifty-one Shaktipithas of Shaktism are described in the early medieval era Puranas as pilgrimage sites around a theme.[79][80][81] This sacred geography and Shaiva temples with same iconography, shared themes, motifs and embedded legends are found across India, from the Himalayas to hills of South India, from Ellora Caves to Varanasi by about the middle of 1st millennium.[79][82] Shakti temples, dated to a few centuries later, are verifiable across the subcontinent. Varanasi as a sacred pilgrimage site is documented in the Varanasimahatmya text embedded inside the Skanda Purana, and the oldest versions of this text are dated to 6th to 8th-century CE.[83][84]

text: The idea of twelve sacred sites in Shiva Hindu tradition spread across the Indian subcontinent appears not only in the medieval era temples but also in copper plate inscriptions and temple seals discovered in different sites.[85] According to Bhardwaj, non-Hindu texts such as the memoirs of Chinese Buddhist and Persian Muslim travellers attest to the existence and significance of the pilgrimage to sacred geography among Hindus by later 1st millennium CE.[86]

text: According to Fleming, those who question whether the term Hindu and Hinduism are a modern construction in a religious context present their arguments based on some texts that have survived into the modern era, either of Islamic courts or of literature published by Western missionaries or colonial-era Indologists aiming for a reasonable construction of history. However, the existence of non-textual evidence such as cave temples separated by thousands of kilometers, as well as lists of medieval era pilgrimage sites, is evidence of a shared sacred geography and existence of a community that was self-aware of shared religious premises and landscape.[87][84] Further, it is a norm in evolving cultures that there is a gap between the "lived and historical realities" of a religious tradition and the emergence of related "textual authorities".[85] The tradition and temples likely existed well before the medieval era Hindu manuscripts appeared that describe them and the sacred geography. This, states Fleming, is apparent given the sophistication of the architecture and the sacred sites along with the variance in the versions of the Puranic literature.[87][88] According to Diana L. Eck and other Indologists such as André Wink, Muslim invaders were aware of Hindu sacred geography such as Mathura, Ujjain, and Varanasi by the 11th-century. These sites became a target of their serial attacks in the centuries that followed.[84]

text: Hindu persecution

text: The Hindus have been persecuted during the medieval and modern era. The medieval persecution included waves of plunder, killing, destruction of temples and enslavement by Turk-Mongol Muslim armies from central Asia. This is documented in Islamic literature such as those relating to 8th century Muhammad bin-Qasim,[89] 11th century Mahmud of Ghazni,[90][91] the Persian traveler Al Biruni,[92] the 14th century Islamic army invasion led by Timur,[93] and various Sunni Islamic rulers of the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire.[94][95][96] There were occasional exceptions such as Akbar who stopped the persecution of Hindus,[96] and occasional severe persecution such as under Aurangzeb,[97][99][f] who destroyed temples, forcibly converted non-Muslims to Islam and banned the celebration of Hindu festivals such as Holi and Diwali.[100]

text: Other recorded persecution of Hindus include those under the reign of 18th century Tipu Sultan in south India,[101][102] and during the colonial era.[103][104][105] In the modern era, religious persecution of Hindus have been reported outside India.[106][107][108]

text: Hindu nationalism

text: Christophe Jaffrelot states that modern Hindu nationalism was born in Maharashtra, in the 1920s, as a reaction to the Islamic Khilafat Movement wherein Indian Muslims championed and took the cause of the Turkish Ottoman sultan as the Caliph of all Muslims, at the end of the World War I.[109][110] Hindus viewed this development as one of divided loyalties of Indian Muslim population, of pan-Islamic hegemony, and questioned whether Indian Muslims were a part of an inclusive anti-colonial Indian nationalism.[110] The Hindu nationalism ideology that emerged, states Jeffrelot, was codified by Savarkar while he was a political prisoner of the British colonial empire.[109][111]

text: Chris Bayly traces the roots of Hindu nationalism to the Hindu identity and political independence achieved by the Maratha confederacy, that overthrew the Islamic Mughal empire in large parts of India, allowing Hindus the freedom to pursue any of their diverse religious beliefs and restored Hindu holy places such as Varanasi.[112] A few scholars view Hindu mobilisation and consequent nationalism to have emerged in the 19th century as a response to British colonialism by Indian nationalists and neo-Hinduism gurus.[113][114][115] Jaffrelot states that the efforts of Christian missionaries and Islamic proselytizers, during the British colonial era, each of whom tried to gain new converts to their own religion, by stereotyping and stigmatising Hindus to an identity of being inferior and superstitious, contributed to Hindus re-asserting their spiritual heritage and counter cross examining Islam and Christianity, forming organisations such as the Hindu Sabhas (Hindu associations), and ultimately a Hindu-identity driven nationalism in the 1920s.[116]

text: The colonial era Hindu revivalism and mobilisation, along with Hindu nationalism, states Peter van der Veer, was primarily a reaction to and competition with Muslim separatism and Muslim nationalism.[117] The successes of each side fed the fears of the other, leading to the growth of Hindu nationalism and Muslim nationalism in the Indian subcontinent.[117] In the 20th century, the sense of religious nationalism grew in India, states van der Veer, but only Muslim nationalism succeeded with the formation of the West and East Pakistan (later split into Pakistan and Bangladesh), as "an Islamic state" upon independence.[118][119][120] Religious riots and social trauma followed as millions of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs moved out of the newly created Islamic states and resettled into the Hindu-majority post-British India.[121] After the separation of India and Pakistan in 1947, the Hindu nationalism movement developed the concept of Hindutva in second half of the 20th century.[122]

text: The Hindu nationalism movement has sought to reform Indian laws, that critics say attempts to impose Hindu values on India's Islamic minority. Gerald Larson states, for example, that Hindu nationalists have sought a uniform civil code, where all citizens are subject to the same laws, everyone has equal civil rights, and individual rights do not depend on the individual's religion.[123] In contrast, opponents of Hindu nationalists remark that eliminating religious law from India poses a threat to the cultural identity and religious rights of Muslims, and people of Islamic faith have a constitutional right to Islamic shariah-based personal laws.[123][124] A specific law, contentious between Hindu nationalists and their opponents in India, relates to the legal age of marriage for girls.[125] Hindu nationalists seek that the legal age for marriage be eighteen that is universally applied to all girls regardless of their religion and that marriages be registered with local government to verify the age of marriage. Muslim clerics consider this proposal as unacceptable because under the shariah-derived personal law, a Muslim girl can be married at any age after she reaches puberty.[125]

text: Hindu nationalism in India, states Katharine Adeney, is a controversial political subject, with no consensus about what it means or implies in terms of the form of government and religious rights of the minorities.[126]

text: Demographics

text:
HindusTotal population
1,150,000,000[128][129]Regions with significant populations India
1,040,000,000[130]   Nepal
23,500,000[131][132] Bangladesh
12,680,000 – 14,487,500[133][134] Indonesia
10,000,000[135] Pakistan
3,885,000[136] United States
3,230,000[137] Sri Lanka
2,554,606[138] Malaysia
1,949,850[139][140] United Kingdom
835,394[141] Myanmar
820,000[142] Mauritius
600,327[143] South Africa
551,669[144] Canada
497,965[145] Australia
440,300[146] Fiji
261,097[147] Trinidad and Tobago
240,100[148] Netherlands
200,000[149] Guyana
190,966[150] Bhutan
185,700[151][152] Italy
177,200[153] Singapore
162,600[154] Russia
140,000[155] Suriname
128,995[156] Germany
120,000[157][158] New Zealand
90,018[159] France
63,718[160][161] Kenya
60,000[162] Réunion
55,409[163] Thailand
52,631[164] Cambodia
41,988[165][166]Religions
HinduismScriptures
Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, and other Hindu textsLanguages
Predominant spoken South Asian languages:[167][168]Hindi (including Caribbean Hindustani, Fiji Hindi, and other Hindi dialects), Nepali, Tamil, Gujarati, Telugu, Marathi, Punjabi, Bengali, Malayalam, Kannada, Tulu, Odia, Sindhi, Sanskrit, Assamese, Bhili, Bodo, Dogri, Kashmiri, Kokborok, Konkani, Kutchi, Maithili, Meitei, Santali, Sinhala, and other South Asian languagesOther Predominant spoken languages:[169]English (including the American, Australian, Bangladeshi, British, Canadian, Guyanese, Indian, Nepalese, New Zealander, Trinidadian and Tobagonian, and other English dialects), Hinglish, Balinese, Malay, Afrikaans, Dutch, Sranan Tongo, German, Russian, French (including Mauritian Creole and Réunion Creole), Italian, Swahili, Burmese, Dzongkha, Javanese, Thai, and KhmerSacred language:[170]Sanskrit

text: According to Pew Research, there are over 1 billion Hindus worldwide (15% of world's population).[171] Along with Christians (31.5%), Muslims (23.2%) and Buddhists (7.1%), Hindus are one of the four major religious groups of the world.[172]

text: Most Hindus are found in Asian countries. The countries with most Hindu residents and citizens include (in decreasing order) are India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, United States, Malaysia, United Kingdom, Myanmar, Canada, Mauritius, Guyana, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Fiji, Suriname.[20][171]

text: The fertility rate, that is children per woman, for Hindus is 2.4, which is less than the world average of 2.5.[173] Pew Research projects that there will be 1.161 billion Hindus by 2020.[174]

text:
Hindus in the World (2010)

Region

Total Population

Hindus

% total

Africa

885,103,542

2,013,705

0.23%

Asia

3,903,418,706

1,014,348,412

26.01%

Europe

728,571,703

2,030,904

0.28%

Americas

883,197,750

6,481,937

0.28%

Oceania

36,659,000

616,000

1.78%

text: In more ancient times, Hindu kingdoms arose and spread the religion and traditions across Southeast Asia, particularly Thailand, Nepal, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia,[175] Laos,[175] Philippines,[176] and what is now central Vietnam.[177]

text: Over 3 million Hindus are found in Bali Indonesia, a culture whose origins trace back to ideas brought by Tamil Hindu traders to Indonesian islands in the 1st millennium CE. Their sacred texts are also the Vedas and the Upanishads.[178] The Puranas and the Itihasa (mainly Ramayana and the Mahabharata) are enduring traditions among Indonesian Hindus, expressed in community dances and shadow puppet (wayang) performances. As in India, Indonesian Hindus recognises four paths of spirituality, calling it Catur Marga.[179] Similarly, like Hindus in India, Balinese Hindu believe that there are four proper goals of human life, calling it Catur Purusartha - dharma (pursuit of moral and ethical living), artha (pursuit of wealth and creative activity), kama (pursuit of joy and love) and moksha (pursuit of self-knowledge and liberation).[180][181]


document_title: The Client List (TV series)

question_text: who plays evan parks in the client list

question_tokens: who plays evan parks in the client list

root

text: The Client List (TV series)

text: Premise[edit]

text: The series follows Riley Parks (Jennifer Love Hewitt), who, after her husband abandons her and their children, leaving her in financial debt, accepts work at a day spa in her small Texas town, but refuses when she learns that for some clients the masseuses provide more than massages. But pressed to support her children, she relents and earns extra money through unspecified erotic services. As she deals with her children, her mother, her friends, the girls at the spa, and various men who want to romance her, Riley tries to keep her work in an erotic limbo a secret.[9]

tag: p

text: Cast and characters[edit]

text: Main cast[edit]

text:
Jennifer Love Hewitt as Riley Parks (née Campbell), the main character whose husband leaves her during a financial crisis when they risk losing their house to foreclosure. Riley is hired at The Rub as a massage therapist and soon realizes the only way to make enough money to catch up financially is to give "extras" to some of the clients. Although hesitant at first, she soon accepts this as a way to save their house and provide for her family. She has a supportive brother-in-law, Evan, who is always looking after her children when she is out and is a close friend to her. Riley and Evan soon develop a relationship, which upsets Riley's husband, Kyle, when he returns later in the series. Riley's best friend Lacey tells her that Kyle planned on leaving her after Lacey finds out the truth about the job's extra services.
Cybill Shepherd as Lynette Montgomery,[10] Riley's mother who works at a hair salon and has been married many times. She tries to look out for Riley's and her grandchildren's best interests.
Loretta Devine as Georgia Cummings-Clemens,[11] the former owner of the massage parlor, The Rub, in Sugar Land.
Colin Egglesfield as Evan Parks,[12] Riley's brother-in-law, her husband's brother, who also harbors secret feelings for her.
Rebecca Field as Lacey Jean Locklin,[13] Riley's best friend since childhood who has discovered the truth about what Riley and most of the other massage therapists do and wants her to quit.
Alicia Lagano as Selena Ramos,[14] a masseuse at the parlor, who often offers "extra services" to her clients. Selena also recommended the masseuse job to Riley. She is shown to be jealous of Riley's relationship with Georgia, who gives her extra responsibilities at the shop, and later becomes her boss. She and Evan had a brief romance, but it did not last.
Brian Hallisay as Kyle Parks (recurring role, season 1; main role, season 2), Riley's husband and Evan's brother, who ran away from his family. He is arrested for stealing copper wire and wants Riley back. She hires a defense attorney for him solely because he is the father of her children.
Naturi Naughton as Kendra (season 1),[15] a hard-working masseuse at the parlor. Kendra quit The Rub along with Jolene in the beginning of the second season.
Kathleen York as Jolene (season 1),[16] another masseuse working at the parlor, who does not give "extras". She only gives "straight" massages. Jolene quit The Rub along with Kendra in the beginning of the second season.
Laura-Leigh as Nikki Shannon (season 2), the newly hired masseuse at The Rub.

tag: ul

text: Recurring cast[edit]

text:
Tyler Champagne as Travis Parks, Kyle and Riley's son
Cassidy Guetersloh as Katie Parks, Kyle and Riley's daughter
Greg Grunberg as Dale Locklin, Lacey's husband
Elisabeth Röhm as Taylor Berkhalter,[17] a woman who continually competes with Riley and ends up buying the hair salon where Lynette and Lacey both work.
Bart Johnson as Beau Berkhalter, Taylor's husband, who later cheated on her.
Rob Mayes as Derek Malloy (season 2), a masseur working at the parlor, who has sexual relations with Selena.
T.V. Carpio as Shelby Prince (season 2), a fellow police officer who met Evan at the police academy, later becoming his girlfriend.
Michael Beach as Harold Clemens (season 2), Georgia's boyfriend and later husband.
Brian Howe as Judge Overton (season 2), one of the names on the client list, working on the inside with Riley.
Marco Sanchez as Graham Sandoval (season 2), Kyle's attorney.
Johnathon Schaech as Greg Carlyle (season 2), a strip club owner that Nikki used to work for, before becoming a masseuse.
Tammy Townsend as Karina Lake (season 2)
Sunny Mabrey as Lisa Munsey (season 2)
Michelle Faraone as Michelle (season 2)
Desi Lydic as Dee Ann (season 1), a masseuse working at the parlor.
Brian Kerwin as Garrett (season 1), Lynette's ex-boyfriend, whom Lynette almost considered marrying.
Jon Prescott as Dr. Mark Flemming (season 1), a single-father widower who asked Riley on a date.

text: Production[edit]

text: Development[edit]

text: The show is based around Lifetime's 2010 television film of the same name, with Jennifer Love Hewitt reprising the lead role. The series, however, is a re-imagining of the film and is not a direct continuation of the film's storyline.[2] The most notable change is that the husband of Hewitt's character abandons his family in the television series before she becomes involved in prostitution, whereas in the film he leaves with their children after the scandal is exposed.

text: The pilot was written by Jordan Budde, and the film's producers all executive-produced the series alongside Hewitt.[5] Budde got the job because Suzanne Martin was busy working on Hot in Cleveland at the time. Upon being given the assignment Budde watched the original movie and felt that the story had ended and also that it was "super depressing" instead he decided to reimagine the show and pitched it that way to Lifetime who accepted. [18] At one point the network toyed with the idea of calling the show "The Rub" and have no connection to the original movie although they eventually decided against this. [18] > Early on Hewitt was involved in the casting of her masseuse clients, although as the show went on she dialed back her involvement in this. This, in part, led to a complaints that that " the guys were all so good looking" later the team tried to cast "t more real guys" although by this point the network refused insisting on "hot guys" [18]

text: Three promotional materials were filmed in October 2011[19] and released before the series premiered.[20] The first of these materials, released on January 26, 2012, featured Hewitt performing Shirley Bassey's "Big Spender" in a music video-style advert, in reference to the true nature of the work at the massage parlor.[21] The video received much interest from the media due to Hewitt's risqué role, who noted that "based on this new promo, the show is going to be seriously hot."[22][23]

text: Filming and premiere[edit]

text: Season 1 consists of 10 episodes. The series began filming on January 17, 2012.[24] Filming of Season 1 ended on May 2, 2012.[25] Season 1 premiered on April 8, 2012 and ended on June 17, 2012.[26]

text: Filming for the second season began on November 1, 2012.[27] Filming of Season 2 ended on April 18, 2013.[28] The season 2 premiered on March 10, 2013 and ended on June 16, 2013.

text: Episodes[edit]

text: Series overview[edit]

text:
Season
Episodes
Originally aired

First aired
Last aired

1
10
April 8, 2012 (2012-04-08)
June 17, 2012 (2012-06-17)

2
15
March 10, 2013 (2013-03-10)
June 16, 2013 (2013-06-16)

tag: table

text: Season 1 (2012)[edit]

text:
No. in
series
No. in
season
Title
Directed by
Written by
Original air date
U.S. viewers
(million)

1
1
"The Rub of Sugarland"
Wendey Stanzler
Jordan Budde
April 8, 2012 (2012-04-08)
2.79[29]

Riley Parks, a single mom from Texas, is left alone with her children after her husband Kyle abruptly leaves. In financial trouble and desperate for a job, Riley gets hired at a massage parlor called The Rub. It's not long before she discovers that The Rub has a client list concerning men who expect "extras". Faced with a tough decision, she decides that in order to protect her family, she must do what she has to do. Soon, Riley realizes that the job comes with many secrets and much danger; which is a risk she is going to have to take.

2
2
"Turn the Page"
Allan Arkush
Barbara Nance
April 15, 2012 (2012-04-15)
2.85[30]

Riley finds the phone number of a woman from Kyle's past and begins to investigate her with the help of Lacey. At the massage parlor, Riley meets an interesting client nicknamed The Camel. Meanwhile, Georgia takes all the girls out for drinks, where Riley discovers the fun side of her new job. Also, Lynette begins a romance with someone from church. Riley finds out her husband didn't cheat on her with the woman from his past, but learns something new about his addiction to painkillers.

3
3
"Tough Love"
John Behring
Laurie Arent
April 22, 2012 (2012-04-22)
2.75[31]

Riley's work and family lives become too much to handle. Riley bails on a client twice. Katie gets in trouble in school for swearing, after a boy teases about her father. Georgia promotes Riley to the manager position, which causes a rift between Riley and Selena. Riley learns from Evan that Kyle is somewhere in Mexico. Lynette introduces her new boyfriend Garrett to the family.

4
4
"Ring True"
Patrick Norris
Efrem Seeger
April 29, 2012 (2012-04-29)
2.41[32]

Riley unintentionally gives "extra service" to a good friend of Kendra's fiance. Kendra, who has not told her fiance about what really goes on at her job, fears that it will ruin her relationship. Riley also aids Kendra in preventing the truth from coming out. Riley pleases her friends and family, by going to a party since Kyle left town.

5
5
"Try, Try Again"
Timothy Busfield
Dawn DeKeyser
May 6, 2012 (2012-05-06)
2.51[33]

Riley goes on her first date since Kyle left town, with a client she met. Riley begins to worry about Lynette's blossoming relationship with Garrett, after Garrett asks for Riley's blessing for Lynette's hand in marriage. Jolene reunites with her teenage son, who she gave up for adoption when she was a young struggling mother.

6
6
"The Cold Hard Truth"
Norman Buckley
Marc Halsey
May 13, 2012 (2012-05-13)
2.27[34]

Georgia is worried that the police will raid the parlor. Lacey finds out about what Riley really has been doing at the parlor and does not take the news well.

7
7
"Life of Riley"
Bethany Rooney
John Tinker
May 20, 2012 (2012-05-20)
2.55[35]

Riley helps a client overcome his fear of speaking to women. Riley finds out that Lacey did not tell her that Kyle planned on leaving her. Riley and Selena's rivalry continues, when Riley learns that Evan has been dating Selena.

8
8
"Games People Play"
Patrick Norris
Laurie Arent
June 3, 2012 (2012-06-03)
2.10[36]

Selena runs into Evan at a lunch spot, and also get unwanted attention from a former client, who call her a whore in front of Evan. Causing him to punch him in the face and defend Selena name.Riley gets involved with a rodeo cowboy's romantic life. Riley and Selena clash over Selena's relationship with Evan. Riley offers to help Lynette out-bid Taylor for ownership of the salon.

9
9
"Acting Up"
Wendey Stanzler
Hollie Overton
June 10, 2012 (2012-06-10)
2.19[37]

Riley goes on her first date with Mark. Dee Ann's relationship with a councilman gets her in hot water with Georgia; she is then fired. Katie runs away while Riley is on her date. Once Riley and Evan find her, they share a kiss. Kyle returns home.

10
10
"Past Is Prologue"
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Story by: Jennifer Love Hewitt & Barbara Nance
Teleplay by: Barbara Nance
June 17, 2012 (2012-06-17)
2.73[38]

Kyle returns home, but his homecoming is anything but warm. Georgia goes on vacation and leaves Riley in charge of the parlor, which doesn't sit well with Selena. Riley re-hires Dee Ann. An elderly client dies under the care of Riley. A corrupt police officer continues to put pressure on Riley.

text: Season 2 (2013)[edit]

text: On May 7, 2012, Lifetime renewed the series for a second season of 15 episodes. Filming for the season began on November 1, 2012,[39] and it premiered on March 10, 2013.[40]

text:
No. in
series
No. in
season
Title
Directed by
Written by
Original air date
U.S. viewers
(million)

11
1
"'Till I Make it On My Own"
Allan Arkush
Story by: Ed Decter
Teleplay by: Natalie Chaidez
March 10, 2013 (2013-03-10)
2.21[41]

In the middle of their argument the police arrive, Riley apologizes thinking that she is the one that is going to get arrested, only for the police to arrest Kyle. Georgia comes back to the spa after she hears about Kyle and find that Kendra and Jolene quit, forcing Selena and Riley to work together so they don't lose clients; Riley finds it hard to find time for her and Evan. While she tries to get Kyle out of jail, she finds out that he stole a truck that was traveling with copper, and the only way for Kyle to get out of jail is to give up his partner in crime, but he won't do it. Riley goes to Georgia with the idea of having Riley own The Rub so that Georgia can keep her new man, and she can still help out if the girls need her; Georgia finds that there is a search warrant for The Rub and that the police are looking at Riley. Kyle promises his attorney that he has something worth more to the police than his partner; while Kyle and Evan fight over the fact that Evan and Riley are growing closer.

12
2
"Who's Cheatin' Who?"
Andy Wolk
Natalie Chaidez
March 17, 2013 (2013-03-17)
2.08[42]

Riley is overwhelmed with the amount of massages she's giving per day, so she decides to hire another massuese. She ends up hiring an ex-stripper community college student in need of money for tuition. Georgia becomes manager at her boyfriend's bar and insists Riley make her first payment to her in a check. Riley learns that Kyle's bail hearing was moved up and was set at $7,500. At home, suddenly Georgia calls and tells Riley to make sure the client list is "good and hidden". Riley quickly reacts, but when the police show up they are looking for money. That night, one of Kyle's buddies from prison shows up at her house and hands her a bag full of $100 bills. Later, the police turn up at the spa and want to search. Riley demands a search warrant they don't have and they leave. Afterwards, Riley takes the bag of cash to the construction site to try and bargain Kyle's way out of jail. The man accepts the money but refuses to drop charges. Nervous because the feds are around, Riley drives to the middle of nowhere and buries the client list in the ground. The next morning while she and Evan are trying to spend quality time together, the police show up once more and inform her that her mother has been in an accident.

13
3
"Cowboy Up"
Rick Wallace
Hollie Overton
March 24, 2013 (2013-03-24)
2.00[43]

With both Riley and Evan finding themselves burdened by Kyle's actions, Evan accepts a perilous job in order to help Riley financially. Meanwhile, Linette has a car accident and, at the spa, Riley tries to please a veteran client and hires a male masseur.

14
4
"My Main Trial Is Yet to Come"
Timothy Busfield
Michael Reisz
March 31, 2013 (2013-03-31)
1.85[44]

At the spa, Riley is surprised at what a client asks for and Selena is suspicious of one of the new girls. Meanwhile, Riley learns that Derek is not all that he seems and struggles to make any alone-time for her and Evan.

15
5
"Hell on Heels"
Jonathan Kaplan
Tawnya Bhattacharya & Ali Laventhol
April 7, 2013 (2013-04-07)
2.19[45]

At the spa, Riley discovers that her new client is an 18-year-old virgin and the locker room becomes the venue for uncomfortable situations between Derek and Selena. Meanwhile at home, Evan offers to take Travis to visit his dad and Linette encourages Katie to enter a pageant. Also, frustrated that she is still not pregnant, Lacey convinces Dale decide to see a fertility specialist.

16
6
"Unanswered Prayers"
Allan Arkush
Shaina Fewell
April 14, 2013 (2013-04-14)
1.96[46]

While Riley works on Kyle's defense, Evan continues his police academy training and Lacey becomes suspicious of Dale, who's band is rocking out with a girl named Honey (Skyler Day). Meanwhile at the spa, Derek gets teased by Selena his frequent client.

17
7
"I Ain't Broke But I'm Badly Bent"
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Natalie Chaidez
April 21, 2013 (2013-04-21)
2.11[47]

At the spa, Riley forms a close bond with a client and the girls have to get creative when there is a power outage. Meanwhile, Riley is shocked when, after fighting with an inmate, Kyle loses his visitation privileges and Lacey and Georgia organise a baby shower for Dale's sister. Riley is offered $50,000 to sleep with a client.

18
8
"Heaven's Just a Sin Away"
Debbie Allen
Nikki Schiefelbein
April 28, 2013 (2013-04-28)
2.39[48]

While Kyle prepares to testify against his former employer, Riley and Lacey go to church with Georgia and Harold and Evan goes on his first date with Shelby. Meanwhile at the spa, Derek receives a warning from Selena about his client.

19
9
"Save A Horse, Ride A Cowboy"
Norman Buckley
Wendy Straker Hauser
May 5, 2013 (2013-05-05)
2.11[49]

Kyle tries best to work his way back into Riley and his kids' lives. Selena fights her ex-husband over custody of a horse.

20
10
"What Part of No"
John Whitesell
Michael Reisz
May 12, 2013 (2013-05-12)
1.79[50]

Lacey is attacked at Riley's house by someone that Riley believes was looking for the client list. Selena and Nikki fight over Derek.

21
11
"I Miss Back When"
Timothy Busfield
Shaina Fewell
May 19, 2013 (2013-05-19)
2.08[51]

Lacey copes with the aftermath of the break-in and her attack. Attempting to cheer her up, Riley convinces her to attend their high school reunion. When Taylor sees her soon to be ex-husband, Beau, moving on with another woman at the reunion, Taylor reacts causing Riley to intervene. Meanwhile at the Rub of Sugarland, Selena warns Derek that his client, Lisa wants to take their relationship to the next step, outside the spa. Evan tries to focus on his relationship with Shelby but his past with Riley keeps intruding. Linette struggles with rehab and leans on Kyle for support.

22
12
"When I Say I Do"
Michael Fields
Story by: Sarah Wise
Teleplay by: Tawnya Bhattacharya & Ali Laventhol
June 2, 2013 (2013-06-02)
2.12[52]

Georgia is having doubts hours before she's due to marry Harold. At the wedding, Selena seems to have finally warmed up to the possibility of a serious relationship with Derek. Kyle continues to impress Riley and finally succeeds in persuading Riley to allow him back into the house. Dale proposes to Lacey again at the ball diamond to cheer her up after her miscarriage. Meanwhile, Evan is involved in police raids of massage parlors in the area. A Russian prostitute is arrested and admits to working for Carlyle. Riley is worried that "The Rub" might be next after she hears about the raids on the radio.

23
13
"Whatever It Takes"
Andy Wolk
Hollie Overton
June 9, 2013 (2013-06-09)
1.95[53]

Kyle moves back in with Riley and the kids. Derek and Selena are officially together. Dale and Lacey are looking into adoption. Riley tries to drum up some more "legitimate" clients for The Rub as a back up plan now that Riley and Kyle are in a better place. She sets up a free massage promotion at a local golf tournament. Travis lies to Kyle to get him to agree to host Travis' team sleep-over at the house. Dale and Lacey walk in on Kyle and Riley arguing over the sleep-over arrangements, so Lacey volunteers herself and Dale to help with the sleep-over in order to defuse the situation. Riley finds out at the golf tournament that Judge Overton is the head of the prostitution busting task force Evan's on and she accosts the Judge over it in the massage chair. Later that evening Riley gets a call from her security company that The Rub has been breached. Riley and Derek check it out and find that Riley's office has been ransacked but nothing appears to be taken. Riley heads to the ranch to check on the client list and discovers it's missing from the box. Nikki confronts Carlyle about trashing Riley's office. He rebuffs her, telling her he had her followed and knows she didn't go to The Rub like she said she had. Carlyle hits Nikki and demands her to leave. Kyle finds out from his lawyer that Vandermeyer put in a plea so Kyle doesn't have to testify.

24
14
"What Kind of Fool Do You Think I Am"
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Nikki Schiefelbein
June 16, 2013 (2013-06-16)
1.90[54]

With the Client List missing, Riley begins preparing for the worst by making a video for her kids and cleaning out her personal and business' bank accounts. Riley stresses over the missing Client List. As she tries to think of who may have taken the list, she is confronted by Judge Overton who is upset over a threat he received from The Rub. Riley then believes the threat came from Nikki since she was connected to Carlyle, who had been after the Client List. Before she can confront Nikki about the list, Evan and detective Monroe show up to bring Nikki in for questioning since the task force is moving in on Carlyle's establishments. Meanwhile, Dale and Lacey are candidates in adopting a child. Riley goes to the police station to find out that Nikki was connected to Carlyle. She later confronts Nikki and Nikki says she has it. She goes to retrieve the list but finds a note that says Carlyle has it. Riley goes into a panic and begins trying to come up with a plan. Riley ends up at the hospital where Dale and Lacey are because they were chosen as a child's adoptive parents. Carlyle corners here when she leaves and tells her that she better have an exit strategy. She goes home and is confronted by Kyle who Evan told Riley was connected to Nikki and Carlyle. Feeling overwhelmed she runs into the street as it's raining as Evan almost runs into her.

25
15
"Wild Nights are Calling"
Allan Arkush
Story by: Ed Decter
Teleplay by: Michael Reisz
June 16, 2013 (2013-06-16)
2.09[54]

text: Controversy[edit]

text: The Client List was the subject of a nationwide campaign by licensed massage therapists to stop the show before it aired. The group, "Massage Therapists Against The Client List", asserts that:

text: The Client List is a series that perpetuates the misconception that Massage Therapy includes inappropriate sexual contact. Massage Therapists are trained healthcare professionals and in most states are licensed and regulated by state medical boards. They adhere to a code of ethics and in some cases are under higher ethical standards than other healthcare professionals – because of these very same misconceptions. Many therapists are now working in doctor's offices and hospitals and providing valuable therapeutic services. The Client List is a huge step backwards."[55]

text: A&E responded to the controversy with the following press release:

text: We appreciate your feedback concerning the new Lifetime Television series entitled, The Client List. For many years, Lifetime television has explored the complexity of women's lives and their stories through fiction and non-fiction movies, series and programs. The Client List is a fictionalized story about the experiences of a single mother as she unexpectedly faces dire economic circumstances. The series also features a broad range of characters with alternative points of view who make different choices. The Client List is not intended to depict any specific spa or massage entity, nor in any way demean or disparage the therapeutic massage profession and its benefits and contributions to the health and wellness industry.[56]

text: Renewal delay and show cancellation[edit]

text: An expected third season renewal for the series was put on hold after the announcement of Jennifer Love Hewitt's pregnancy in June 2013. Hewitt reportedly wanted/insisted the real father of her child, co-star and fiancé Brian Hallisay, to also be the father of a fictional baby to be born by her character in the third season, while the show's executives and writers wanted Colin Egglesfield's character to be the father. Lifetime was undecided, which led to a renewal delay that lasted into October 2013.[57] Due to creative differences between Hewitt, Lifetime, Sony Pictures Television, and ITV Studios America, the show was officially canceled on November 1, 2013 after two seasons.[7][8]

text: Ratings[edit]

text: The first season of The Client List, consisting of 10 episodes, was watched by an average of 2.51 million viewers per week.[58] The second season, consisting of 15 episodes, was watched by an average of 2.05 million viewers.[59]

text: Awards and nominations[edit]

text:
Awards and nominations for The Client List

Year
Award
Category
Recipients and nominees
Outcome

2012
California on Location Awards[60]
Assistant Location Manager of the Year – Television
Eva M. Schroeder
Won

2013
Young Artist Awards[61]
Best Performance in a TV Series – Recurring Young Actor Ten and Under
Tyler Champagne
Nominated


document_title: Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke

question_text: on what basis did alan bakke challenge affirmative action in 1978

text: Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke

text: Background[edit]

text: State of the law[edit]

text: In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled segregation by race in public schools to be unconstitutional. In the following fifteen years, the court issued landmark rulings in cases involving race and civil liberties, but left supervision of the desegregation of Southern schools mostly to lower courts.[1] Among other progressive legislation, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[2] Title VI of which forbids racial discrimination in any program or activity receiving federal funding.[3] By 1968, integration of public schools was well advanced. In that year, the Supreme Court revisited the issue of school desegregation in Green v. County School Board, ruling that it was not enough to eliminate racially discriminatory practices; state governments were under an obligation to actively work to desegregate schools.[4][5] The school board in Green had allowed children to attend any school, but few chose to attend those dominated by another race.[6] In 1970, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, the Supreme Court upheld an order for busing of students to desegregate a school system.[4][7]

text: Although public universities were integrated by court decree, selective colleges and graduate programs, and the professions which stemmed from them, remained almost all white. Many African-Americans had attended inferior schools and were ill-prepared to compete in the admissions process. This was unsatisfactory to many activists of the late 1960s, who protested that given the African-American's history of discrimination and poverty, some preference should be given to minorities. This became a commonly held liberal position, and large numbers of public and private universities began affirmative action programs.[8] Among these were the University of California, Davis School of Medicine (UC Davis or "the university"), which was founded in 1968 and had an all-white inaugural class. The faculty was concerned by this, and the school began a special admissions program "to compensate victims of unjust societal discrimination".[9][10] The application form contained a question asking if the student wished to be considered disadvantaged, and, if so, these candidates were screened by a special committee, on which more than half the members were from minority groups.[11] Initially, the entering class was 50 students, and eight seats were put aside for minorities; when the class size doubled in 1971, there were 16 seats which were to be filled by candidates recommended by the special committee.[12] While nominally open to whites, no one of that race was admitted under the program, which was unusual in that a specific number of seats were to be filled by candidates through this program.[9]

text: The first case taken by the Supreme Court on the subject of the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education was DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974).[13][14] Marco DeFunis, a white man, had twice been denied admission to the University of Washington School of Law. The law school maintained an affirmative action program, and DeFunis had been given a higher rating by admissions office staff than some admitted minority candidates. The Washington state trial court ordered DeFunis admitted, and he attended law school while the case was pending. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the trial court, but the order was stayed, and DeFunis remained in school. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and the case was briefed and argued, but by then, DeFunis was within months of graduation. The law school stated in its briefs that even if it won, it would not dismiss him.[13][15] After further briefing on the question of mootness, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, 5-4, holding that as DeFunis had almost completed his studies, there was no longer a case or controversy to decide.[13][16] Justice William Brennan, in an opinion joined by the other three members of the minority, accused the court of "sidestepping" the issues, which "must inevitably return to the federal courts and ultimately again to this court".[13][17]

text: Allan Bakke[edit]

text: Allan Paul Bakke (born 1940),[18] a 35-year-old white male, applied to twelve medical schools in 1973. He had been a National Merit Scholar at Coral Gables Senior High School, in Florida. He was accepted as an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota, deferring tuition costs by joining Naval ROTC. He graduated with a grade-point average (GPA) of 3.51. In order to fulfill his ROTC requirements, he joined the Marine Corps and served four years, including a seven-month tour of duty in Vietnam as a commanding officer of an anti-aircraft battery. In 1967, having achieved the rank of captain, he was granted an honorable discharge.[19] Bakke then worked as an engineer at NASA. He stated that his interest in medicine started in Vietnam, and increased at NASA, as he had to consider the problems of space flight and the human body there. But twelve medical schools rejected his application for admission.[20]

text: Bakke had applied first to the University of Southern California and Northwestern University, in 1972, and both rejected him, making a point of his age, with Northwestern writing that it was above their limit.[20] Medical schools at the time openly practiced age discrimination.[21]

text: Bakke applied late to UC Davis in 1973 because his mother-in-law was ill.[22][23] This delay may well have cost him admission: although his credentials were outstanding even among applicants not part of the special program, by the time his candidacy was considered under the school's rolling admissions process, there were few seats left.[24] His application reflected his anxiety about his age, referring to his years of sacrifice for his country as a cause of his interest in medicine.[20]

text: Bakke received 468 points out of a possible 500 on the admissions committee’s rating scale in 1973. Earlier in the year, a rating of 470 had won automatic admission with some promising applicants being admitted with lower scores. Bakke had a science GPA of 3.44 and an overall GPA of 3.46 after taking science courses at night to qualify for medical school. On the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT), Bakke scored in the 97th percentile in scientific knowledge, the 96th percentile in verbal ability, the 94th percentile in quantitative analysis, and the 72nd percentile in general knowledge.[19][25] Bakke's MCAT score overall was 72; the average applicant to UC Davis scored a 69 and the average applicant under the special program a 33.[26] In March 1973, Bakke was invited to UC Davis for an interview. Dr. Theodore West, who met with him, described Bakke as “a well-qualified candidate for admission whose main hardship is the unavoidable fact that he is now 33. … On the grounds of motivation, academic records, potential promise, endorsement by persons capable of reasonable judgments, personal appearance and decorum, maturity, and probable contribution to balance in the class, I believe Mr. Bakke must be considered as a very desirable applicant and I shall so recommend him.”[25][27] About two months later in May 1973, Bakke received notice of his rejection.[19][20]

text: Bakke complained to Dr. George Lowrey, chairman of the admissions committee at the medical school, about the special admissions program. At Lowrey's request, Assistant Dean Peter Storandt told Bakke his candidacy had come close and encouraged him to reapply. If he was not accepted the second time, "he could then research the legal question. He had been a good candidate. I thought he'd be accepted and that would end the matter."[28] Storandt also gave Bakke the names of two lawyers interested in the issue of affirmative action.[19] The general counsel for the University of California said, "I don't think Storandt meant to injure the university. It's simply an example of a non-lawyer advising on legal matters."[28] Storandt stated, "I simply gave Allan the response you'd give an irate customer, to try and cool his anger. I realized the university might be vulnerable to legal attack because of its quota, and I had the feeling by then that somebody somewhere would sue the school, but I surely didn't know this would be the case."[28] Storandt was demoted and later left the university. According to Bernard Schwartz in his account of the Bakke case, Storandt was fired.[28][29]

text: Allan Bakke applied to UC Davis medical school again in 1974.[20] He was interviewed twice: once by a student interviewer, who recommended his admission, and once by Dr. Lowrey, who in his report stated that Bakke "had very definite opinions which were based more on his personal viewpoints than on a study of the whole problem … He was very unsympathetic to the concept of recruiting minority students."[30] Lowrey gave Bakke a poor evaluation, the only part of his application on which he did not have a high score.[31] He was rejected again, although minorities were admitted in both years with significantly lower academic scores through the special program. Not all minority applicants whose admission was recommended under the program gained entry—some were rejected by the admissions committee. This, however, did not affect the number of minority students to be admitted, sixteen.[20][32] Although 272 white people between 1971 and 1974 had applied under this program, none had been successful;[19] in 1974 the special admissions committee summarily rejected all white students who asked for admission under the program. Only one black student and six Latinos were admitted under the regular admissions program in that time period, though significant numbers of Asian students were given entry.[33]

text: According to a 1976 Los Angeles Times article, the dean of the medical school sometimes intervened on behalf of daughters and sons of the university's "special friends" in order to improve their chances.[34] Among those who benefitted by Dean C. John Tupper's interventions (about five per year) was the son of an influential state assemblyman, who had not even filed an application. The special picks were ended by order of University of California President David S. Saxon in 1976. Bakke's lawyer deemed it impossible to tell if these picks caused Bakke not to be admitted, but according to an attorney who filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the National Urban League in support of affirmative action, the practice of dean's picks made the university reluctant to go into detail about its admission practices at trial, affecting its case negatively.[35]

text: Lower court history[edit]

text: On June 20, 1974,[36] following his second rejection from UC Davis, Bakke brought suit against the university's governing board in the Superior Court of California,[32] Yolo County. He sought an order admitting him on the ground that the special admission programs for minorities violated the U.S. and California constitutions, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. UC Davis's counsel filed a request that the judge, F. Leslie Manker, find that the special program was constitutional and legal, and argued that Bakke would not have been admitted even if there had been no seats set aside for minorities. On November 20, 1974, Judge Manker found the program unconstitutional and in violation of Title VI, "no race or ethnic group should ever be granted privileges or immunities not given to every other race."[37] Manker ordered the medical school to disregard race as a factor, and to reconsider Bakke's application under a race-free system.[38] After Manker entered final judgment in the case on March 7, 1975,[36] both parties appealed, the university on March 20 because the program was struck down, and Bakke on April 17 because he was not ordered admitted.[36][38]

text: Because of the important issues presented, the Supreme Court of California on June 26, 1975 ordered the appeal transferred to it, bypassing the intermediate appeals court.[39][40] On March 19, 1976, the case was argued before the state supreme court.[41] Nine amicus curiae briefs were filed by various organizations, the majority in support of the university's position.[42] 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. Nevertheless, on September 16, 1976, the court, in an opinion by Justice Stanley Mosk, upheld the lower-court ruling, 6–1.[36][42][43] Mosk wrote that "no applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as measured by standards applied without regard to race".[44][45] Justice Matthew O. Tobriner dissented, stating that Mosk's suggestion that the state open more medical schools to accommodate both white and minority was unrealistic due to cost: "It is a cruel hoax to deny minorities participation in the medical profession on the basis of such fanciful speculation."[46][47] The court barred the university from using race in the admissions process and ordered it to provide evidence that Bakke would not have been admitted under a race-neutral program. When the university conceded its inability to do so in a petition for rehearing, the court on October 28, 1976 amended its ruling to order Bakke's admission and denied the petition.[36][48][49]

text: U.S. Supreme Court consideration[edit]

text: Acceptance and briefs[edit]

text: The university requested that the U.S. Supreme Court stay the order requiring Bakke's admission pending its filing a petition asking for review. U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, as circuit justice for the Ninth Circuit (which includes California) granted the stay for the court in November 1976.[50][51]

text: The university filed a petition for writ of certiorari in December 1976.[51] The papers of some of the justices who participated in the Bakke case reveal that the case was three times considered by the court in January and February 1977. Four votes were needed for the court to grant certiorari, and it had at least that number each time, but was twice put over for reconsideration at the request of one of the justices. A number of civil rights organizations filed a joint brief as amicus curiae, urging the court to deny review, on the grounds that the Bakke trial had failed to fully develop the issues—the university had not introduced evidence of past discrimination, or of bias in the MCAT. Nevertheless, on February 22, the court granted certiorari, with the case to be argued in its October 1977 term.[52][53]

text: The parties duly filed their briefs. The university's legal team was now headed by former U.S. Solicitor General and Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox, who had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. Cox wrote much of the brief, and contended in it that "the outcome of this controversy will decide for future generations whether blacks, Chicanos and other insular minorities are to have meaningful access to higher education and real opportunities to enter the learned professions".[54] The university also took the position that Bakke had been rejected because he was unqualified.[55] Reynold Colvin, for Bakke, argued that his client's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection of the laws had been violated by the special admission program.[56] Fifty-eight amicus curiae briefs were filed, establishing a record for the Supreme Court that would stand until broken in the 1989 abortion case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. Future justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg signed the ACLU's brief; Marco deFunis, the petitioner in the 1974 case dismissed for mootness, wrote the brief for Young Americans for Freedom.[57]

text: In addition to the various other amici, the United States filed a brief through the Solicitor General, as it may without leave of court under the Supreme Court's rules. When consideration of Bakke began in the new administration of President Jimmy Carter, early drafts of the brief both supported affirmative action and indicated that the program should be struck down and Bakke admitted. This stance reflected the mixed support of affirmative action at that time by the Democrats. Minorities and others in that party complained, and in late July 1977, Carter announced that the government's brief would firmly support affirmative action. That document, filed October 3, 1977 (nine days before oral argument), stated that the government supported programs tailored to make up for past discrimination, but opposed rigid set-asides.[58] The United States urged the court to remand the case to allow for further fact-finding (a position also taken by civil rights groups in their amicus briefs).[58]

text: While the case was awaiting argument, another white student, Rita Clancy, sued for admission to UC Davis Medical School on the same grounds as Bakke had. In September 1977, she was ordered admitted pending the outcome of the Bakke case. After Bakke was decided, the university dropped efforts to oust her, stating that as she had successfully completed one year of medical school, she should remain.[59]

text: Argument and deliberation[edit]

text: Oral argument in Bakke took place on October 12, 1977. There was intense public interest in the case; prospective attendees began to line up the afternoon before. The court session took two hours, with Cox arguing for the university, Colvin for Bakke, and Solicitor General Wade H. McCree for the United States.[60] Colvin was admonished by Justice Byron White for arguing the facts, rather than the Constitution.[61] Cox provided one of the few moments of levity during the argument when Justice Harry A. Blackmun wondered whether the set-aside seats could be compared to athletic scholarships. Cox was willing to agree, but noted that he was a Harvard graduate, and as for sporting success, "I don't know whether it's our aim, but we don't do very well."[62]

text: Beginning the day after the argument, the justices lobbied each other through written memorandum.[63] At a conference held among justices on October 15, 1977, they decided to request further briefing from the parties on the applicability of Title VI.[64] The supplemental brief for the university was filed on November 16, and argued that Title VI was a statutory version of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and did not allow private plaintiffs, such as Bakke, to pursue a claim under it. Bakke's brief arrived the following day. Colvin submitted that Bakke did have a private right of action, and that his client did not want the university to suffer the remedy prescribed under Title VI for discriminatory institutions—loss of federal funding—but wanted to be admitted.[65] In November, Justice Blackmun left Washington to have prostate surgery at the Mayo Clinic.[66]

text: Blackmun's absence did not stem the flow of memos, notably one on November 22 from Justice Lewis Powell, analyzing the minority admissions program under the strict scrutiny standard often applied when government treats some citizens differently from others based on a suspect classification such as race. Concluding that the program did not meet the standard, and must be struck down, Powell's memorandum stated that affirmative action was permissible under some circumstances, and eventually formed much of his released opinion.[67]

text: At the justices' December 9 conference, with Blackmun still absent, they considered the case. Counting heads, four justices (Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justices Potter Stewart, Rehnquist, and John Paul Stevens) favored affirming the California Supreme Court's decision. Three (Justices Brennan, White, and Thurgood Marshall) wanted to uphold the program. Justice Blackmun had not yet weighed in. Powell stated his views, after which Brennan, hoping to cobble together a five-justice majority to support the program, or at least to support the general principle of affirmative action, suggested to Powell that applying Powell's standard meant that the lower court decision would be affirmed in part and reversed in part. Powell agreed.[68]

text: Even when Blackmun returned in early 1978, he was slow to make his position on Bakke known. It was not until May 1 that he circulated a memorandum to his colleagues's chambers, indicating that he would join Brennan's bloc, in support of affirmative action and the university's program. This meant that Powell was essential to either side being part of a majority. Over the following eight weeks, Powell fine-tuned his opinion to secure the willingness of each group to join part of it. The other justices began work on opinions that would set forth their views.[69]

text: Decision[edit]

text: The Supreme Court's decision in Bakke was announced on June 28, 1978. The justices penned six opinions; none of them, in full, had the support of a majority of the court. In a plurality opinion,[a] Justice Powell delivered the judgment of the court. Four justices (Burger, Stewart, Rehnquist, and Stevens) joined with him to strike down the minority admissions program and admit Bakke. The other four justices (Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun) dissented from that portion of the decision, but joined with Powell to find affirmative action permissible under some circumstances, though subject to an intermediate scrutiny standard of analysis. They also joined with Powell to reverse that portion of the judgment of the California Supreme Court that forbade the university to consider race in the admissions process.[70]

text: Powell's opinion[edit]

text: Justice Powell, after setting forth the facts of the case, discussed and found it unnecessary to decide whether Bakke had a private right of action under Title VI, assuming that was so for purposes of the case.[71] He then discussed the scope of Title VI, opining that it barred only those racial classifications forbidden by the Constitution.[72]

text: Turning to the program itself, Powell determined that it was not simply a goal, as the university had contended, but a racial qualification—assuming that UC Davis could find sixteen minimally qualified minority students, there were only 84 seats in the freshman class open to white students, whereas minorities could compete for any spot in the 100-member class. He traced the history of the jurisprudence under the Equal Protection Clause, and concluded that it protected all, not merely African Americans or only minorities. Only if it served a compelling interest could the government treat members of different races differently.[73]

text: Powell noted that the university, in its briefs, had cited decisions where there had been race-conscious remedies, such as in the school desegregation cases, but found them inapposite as there was no history of racial discrimination at the University of California-Davis Medical School to remedy. He cited precedent 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, this was a suspect classification. Such discrimination was only justifiable when necessary to a compelling governmental interest. He rejected assertions by the university that government had a compelling interest in boosting the number of minority doctors, and deemed too nebulous the argument that the special admissions program would help bring doctors to underserved parts of California—after all, that purpose would also be served by admitting white applicants interested in practicing in minority communities. Nevertheless, Powell opined that government had a compelling interest in a racially diverse student body.[74]

text: In a part of the opinion concurred in by Chief Justice Burger and his allies, Powell found that the program, with its set-aside of a specific number of seats for minorities, did discriminate against Bakke, as less restrictive programs, such as making race one of several factors in admission, would serve the same purpose. Powell offered the example (set out in an appendix) of the admissions program at Harvard University as one he believed would pass constitutional muster—that institution did not set rigid quotas for minorities, but actively recruited them and sought to include them as more than a token part of a racially and culturally diverse student body. Although a white student might still lose out to a minority with lesser academic qualifications, both white and minority students might gain from non-objective factors such as the ability to play sports or a musical instrument. Accordingly, there was no constitutional violation in using race as one of several factors.[75][76]

text: Powell opined that because the university had admitted that it could not prove that Bakke would not have been admitted even had there been no special admissions program, the portion of the California Supreme Court's decision ordering Bakke's admission was proper, and was upheld. Nevertheless, the state was entitled to consider race as one of several factors, and the portion of the California court's judgment which had ordered the contrary was overruled.[77]

text: Other opinions[edit]

text: Brennan delivered the joint statement of four justices: Marshall, White, Blackmun and himself. In verbally introducing their opinion in the Supreme Court courtroom, Brennan stated that the "central meaning" of the Bakke decision was that there was a majority of the court in favor of the continuation of affirmative action.[78] In the joint opinion, those four justices wrote, "government may take race into account when it acts not to demean or insult any racial group, but to remedy disadvantages cast on minorities by past racial prejudice".[79] They suggested that any admissions program with the intention of remedying past race discrimination would be constitutional, whether that involved adding bonus points for race, or setting aside a specific number of places for them.[80]

text: White issued an opinion expressing his view that there was not a private right of action under Title VI.[81][82] Thurgood Marshall also wrote separately, recounting at length the history of discrimination against African-Americans, and concluding, "I do not believe that anyone can truly look into America's past and still find that a remedy for the effects of that past is impermissible."[80][83] Blackmun subscribed to the idea of color consciousness, declaring that, "in order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently. We cannot—we dare not—let the Equal Protection Clause perpetuate racial superiority."[81][84]

text: Justice Stevens, joined by Burger, Stewart and Rehnquist, concurring in part and dissenting in part in the judgment, found it unnecessary to determine whether a racial preference was ever allowed under the Constitution. A narrow finding that the university had discriminated against Bakke, violating Title VI, was sufficient, and the court was correct to admit him.[85] "It is therefore perfectly clear that the question whether race can ever be used as a factor in an admissions decision is not an issue in this case, and that discussion of that issue is inappropriate."[86] According to Stevens, "[t]he meaning of the Title VI ban on exclusion is crystal clear: Race cannot be the basis of excluding anyone from a federally funded program".[87][88] He concluded, "I concur in the Court's judgment insofar as it affirms the judgment of the Supreme Court of California. To the extent that it purports to do anything else, I respectfully dissent."[89]

text: Reaction[edit]

text: Newspapers stressed different aspects of Bakke, often reflecting their political ideology. The conservative Chicago Sun-Times bannered Bakke's admission in its headline, while noting that the court had permitted affirmative action under some circumstances. The Washington Post, a liberal newspaper, began its headline in larger-than-normal type, "Affirmative Action Upheld" before going on to note that the court had admitted Bakke and curbed quotas.[90] The Wall Street Journal, in a headline, deemed Bakke "The Decision Everybody Won".[91] According to Oxford University Chair of Jurisprudence Ronald Dworkin, the court's decision "was received by the press and much of the public with great relief, as an act of judicial statesmanship that gave to each party in the national debate what it seemed to want most".[92]

text: Attorney General Griffin Bell, after speaking with President Jimmy Carter, stated, "my general view is that affirmative action has been enhanced", and that such programs in the federal government would continue as planned.[93] Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair Eleanor Holmes Norton told the media "that the Bakke case has not left me with any duty to instruct the EEOC staff to do anything different".[94]

text: Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe wrote in 1979, "the Court thus upheld the kind of affirmative action plan used by most American colleges and universities, and disallowed only the unusually mechanical—some would say unusually candid, others would say unusually impolitic—approach taken by the Medical School" of UC Davis.[95] Robert M. O'Neil wrote in the California Law Review the same year that only rigid quotas were foreclosed to admissions officers and even "relatively subtle changes in the process by which applications were reviewed, or in the resulting minority representation, could well produce a different alignment [of justices]".[96] Law professor and future judge Robert Bork wrote in the pages of The Wall Street Journal that the justices who had voted to uphold affirmative action were "hard-core racists of reverse discrimination".[93]

text: Allan Bakke had given few interviews during the pendency of the case, and on the day it was decided, went to work as usual in Palo Alto.[55] He issued a statement through attorney Colvin expressing his pleasure in the result and that he planned to begin his medical studies that fall.[97] Most of the lawyers and university personnel who would have to deal with the aftermath of Bakke doubted the decision would change very much. The large majority of affirmative action programs at universities, unlike that of the UC Davis medical school, did not use rigid numerical quotas for minority admissions and could continue.[98] According to Bernard Schwartz in his account of Bakke, the Supreme Court's decision "permits admission officers to operate programs which grant racial preferences—provided that they do not do so as blatantly as was done under the sixteen-seat 'quota' provided at Davis".[99]

text: Aftermath[edit]

text: Allan Bakke, "America's best known freshman", enrolled at the UC Davis medical school on September 25, 1978.[100] Seemingly oblivious to the questions of the press and the shouts of protesters, he stated only "I am happy to be here" before entering to register.[100] When the university declined to pay his legal fees, Bakke went to court, and on January 15, 1980, was awarded $183,089.[97] Graduating from the UC Davis medical school in 1982 at age 42, he went on to a career as an anesthesiologist at the Mayo Clinic and at the Olmsted Medical Group in Rochester, Minnesota.[101][102]

text: In 1996, Californians by initiative banned the state's use of race as a factor to consider in public schools' admission policies.[103] [b] The university's Board of Regents, led by Ward Connerly, voted to end race as a factor in admissions. 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[105]—this, it was felt, would aid minority inner-city students.[106]

text: Dworkin warned in 1978 that "Powell's opinion suffers from fundamental weaknesses, and if the Court is to arrive at a coherent position, far more judicial work remains to be done than a relieved public yet realizes".[92] The Supreme Court has continued to grapple with the question of affirmative action in higher education. In the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger, it reaffirmed Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke in a majority opinion, thus rendering moot concerns expressed by lower courts that Bakke might not be binding precedent due to the fractured lineup of justices in a plurality opinion.[107] The court's decision in the 2013 case of Fisher v. University of Texas made alterations to the standards by which courts must judge affirmative action programs, but continued to permit race to be taken into consideration in university admissions, while forbidding outright quotas.[108][109]


document_title: Rudy Ruettiger

question_text: where did rudy go to college before notre dame

text: Rudy Ruettiger

text: Early life and college career[edit]

text: Daniel Ruettiger (nicknamed "Rudy") had a hard time in school because he was dyslexic. He was the third of fourteen children. He attended Joliet Catholic High School, where he played for locally famous coach Gordie Gillespie. Ruettiger joined the United States Navy after high school, serving as a yeoman on a communications command ship for two years; then he worked in a power plant for two years. He applied to Notre Dame, but due to his marginal grades he had to do his early college work at nearby Holy Cross College.

text: After two years at Holy Cross, Ruettiger was accepted as a student at Notre Dame on his fourth try, in the fall of 1974. It was during his time studying at Holy Cross that Ruettiger discovered he had dyslexia.

text: Ruettiger harbored a dream to play for the Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team, despite being undersized at merely 5'6" and 165 pounds.[1] Head coach Ara Parseghian encouraged walk-on players from the student body. For example, Notre Dame's 1969 starting center, Mike Oriard, was a walk-on who was eventually nominated for a Rhodes Scholarship and an NFL contract with the Kansas City Chiefs.[2][3]

text: After working as hard as possible and showing that he was willing to work as much as he needed to, Ruettiger earned a place on the Notre Dame scout team, a practice squad that helps the varsity team practice for games. Merv Johnson was the coach who was instrumental in keeping Rudy on as a scout-team player.

text: After the 1974 season, Notre Dame coach Parseghian stepped down, and former Green Bay Packers coach Dan Devine was named head coach. In Ruettiger's last opportunity to play for Notre Dame at home, Devine put him into a game as defensive end against Georgia Tech on November 8, 1975. In the movie Rudy, Devine is given a somewhat antagonistic role, not wanting Ruettiger to dress for his last game. In the real life scenario, however, it was Devine who came up with the idea to dress Ruettiger. In the final play of Ruettiger's senior season with the Fighting Irish, he recorded a sack,[4] which is all his Notre Dame stat line has ever shown. Ruettiger actually played for three plays.[4] The first play was a kickoff,[4] the second play was an incomplete pass, and on the third (and final) play he sacked[4] Georgia Tech quarterback Rudy Allen.[5] Ruettiger was carried off the field by his teammates following the game.

text: Ruettiger was one of two players in Notre Dame history to ever be carried off the field by his teammates. The other is Marc Edwards in 1995.[6][7]

text: Life post Notre Dame[edit]

text: The inaugural 2007 College Football Rudy Award was held on January 8, 2008 at the Opryland Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee.[8] The College Football Rudy Award was created by the Rudy Foundation and honors Division I football players who demonstrate what Ruettiger refers to as "The Four C's": character, courage, contribution, and commitment as a member of their team.[9] The 2007 award was presented to Terry Clayton of the University of Kentucky Wildcats and the 2008 award was presented to Drew Combs of the Texas Christian University Horned Frogs. The 2009 award-winner was LeVon Morefield of University of Akron Zips, and in 2010 it went to Mark Herzlich of the Boston College Eagles.

text: On October 14, 2005, Ruettiger was the master of ceremonies at a pep rally for Notre Dame Football. The Fighting Irish were about to play rival and then #1-ranked University of Southern California (USC) the following day and Head Coach Charlie Weis asked some Notre Dame legends, including Tim Brown and Joe Montana, to come back and speak at the rally. Ruettiger came out of the tunnel at Notre Dame Stadium to a loud ovation.[10] Notre Dame ultimately lost the game (though that loss was later vacated due to misconduct by USC).

text: In July 2009, Ruettiger was initiated into the Kappa Sigma Fraternity at the Grand Conclave in San Antonio, Texas.[11]

text: In September 2009, Trusted Sports and Ruettiger launched the High School Football 'Rudy' Awards, which aims to uncover the "Rudy" on every High School football team in America. The award is presented to the most inspirational High School football player who personifies what Ruettiger calls "The Four C's": Courage, Character, Commitment, and Contribution. Inspired by the College Football Rudy Awards, three finalists were announced on February 3, 2010. The winner, Calob Leindecker of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, received a college scholarship totalling $10,000. Two runners-up, Kyle Weafer of Kansas and Justin Ray Duke of Texas each received $5,000 scholarships.

text: Ruettiger's story was told in the 1993 film Rudy, which starred actor Sean Astin in the title role. The film was written by Angelo Pizzo and directed by David Anspaugh, both of whom were involved in Hoosiers. Ruettiger appeared in a cameo as a fan behind his father, Ned Beatty, during the final scene.[12]

text: SEC investigation[edit]

text: In 2011, Ruettiger was charged with security fraud by the SEC, for participating in a pump-and-dump scheme. A settlement of the case required Ruettiger to pay $382,866 in fines.[13]

text: Publications[edit]

text:
Rudy's Insights for Winning in Life ISBN 978-0-9658119-1-0
Rudy's Lessons for Young Champions ISBN 978-0-9658119-0-3
Rudy & Friends ISBN 978-1-880692-39-4

text: Awards[edit]

text:
Honorary Doctorate Degree from Our Lady of Holy Cross College
The key to numerous cities across the nation along with special proclamations for his inspiration, commitment, and human spirit
Honorary assist to the Attorney General of Louisiana
Recognition from President George W. Bush
Recognition at the White House
Recognition from the House of Representatives in the state of Texas
A Proclamation from the Governor of Nevada granting an Official Rudy Award Day

text: Movie accuracy[edit]

text: This section may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions. (April 2015)

text: Ruettiger has said that the movie is "98% true." The players did not lay down their jerseys; rather, the team captain requested that he be allowed to play. Dan Devine is given an antagonistic role in the film, but the coach was actually one of his biggest motivators to return to the team. The groundskeeper and former player Fortune is a combination of three different people.[citation needed]

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ Ruettiger's stats on his official website. Rudyint.com. Retrieved on April 19, 2012.
Jump up ^ "It's Not All Fun and Games: college athletics, Notre Dame Magazine Online, summer 2002". Archived from the original on December 14, 2007. Retrieved April 19, 2012. CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link)
Jump up ^ [1]
^ Jump up to: a b c d Video of final three plays on YouTube (August 26, 2006). Retrieved on 2012-04-19.
Jump up ^ Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger recording the final sack for Notre Dame against Georgia Tech on November 8th, 1975 on YouTube
Jump up ^ Rudy Chasing the Frog. Chasingthefrog.com (February 25, 1971). Retrieved on 2012-04-19.
Jump up ^ Dick Weiss, SLIGHTING IRISH HURTS ALLEGED USC TAUNTS INSPIRE NOTRE DAME Archived April 17, 2009, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ "Rudy Award winner 2007". Archived from the original on October 20, 2009. Retrieved January 13, 2011. CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link) . rudyawards.com
Jump up ^ "The Rudy Award". Archived from the original on March 5, 2009. Retrieved January 13, 2011. CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link) . rudyawards.com
Jump up ^ "One for the ages: USC edges Notre Dame: Leinart pulls trickery with 3 seconds left, Bush scores 3 TDs in 34–31 win"; msnbc.com. MSNBC. Retrieved on April 19, 2012.
Jump up ^ 67th Grand Conclave – Kappa Zeta For Outstanding Year 2008 – 2009. Kappasigmagsu.com. Retrieved on April 19, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Rudy (1993) – Full Cast and Crew"; imdb.com
Jump up ^ "Rudy Ruettiger: I Shouldn't Have Been Chasing The Money" Forbes Magazine, 6/11/2012

tag: ol