Bakke case
The Bakke case, formally known as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, was a significant legal battle surrounding affirmative action in higher education. Allan Bakke, a white applicant, challenged the admissions policy of the University of California at Davis, which reserved a number of spots for racial minority students. Bakke claimed that he was more qualified than some applicants accepted into these reserved spots, arguing that he faced discrimination based on his race. In a landmark 1978 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke, stating that the university's practice of racial quotas violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race in federally funded programs.
However, the Court also affirmed that race could be considered as one of multiple factors in admissions decisions, allowing for affirmative action policies that do not strictly impose quotas. This ruling highlighted the ongoing debate over race, equality, and educational access in the United States. The case set a precedent that maintained affirmative action programs in some capacity while challenging specific practices seen as discriminatory. The Bakke decision remains a touchstone in discussions about race and education, influencing later legal cases and public policy surrounding affirmative action.
Bakke case
Allan Bakke had applied to the medical school of the University of California at Davis, but he was not among the one hundred applicants finally accepted by the school. Pursuant to university policy, sixteen of the hundred slots had been reserved for racial minority students. Bakke, who was white, claimed that since he was better qualified than some of the applicants accepted for the sixteen minority positions, the university had discriminated against him on the basis of race.
The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke, and the case was appealed to the US Supreme Court. The case drew national attention, attracting a record-breaking number of amicus curiae briefs. On June 28, 1978, the Court, sharply divided, issued its decision in favor of Bakke. In a 5 to 4 vote, the Court held that the University of California at Davis’ practice of reserving positions strictly on the basis of race violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in . . . any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Davis did not contest the fact that it was receiving federal financial assistance. Although the decision was not based on constitutional grounds, Justice Lewis Powell, writing for the majority, noted that the guarantees of Title VI are grounded in principles found in the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A different 5 to 4 majority, however, also declared that race could be considered as one of several criteria for admission to a university. One’s status as a racial minority presumably could help one secure admission, but only if the position being contested were formally available to all, irrespective of race. The Court thus did not rule out affirmative action programs in general, only those provisions that amount to strict racial quotas. The decision can therefore be seen as a compromise between those who would abolish all forms of affirmative action in higher education as reverse discrimination and those who would guarantee outcomes based on race.
The narrowness of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke ensured the continuation of affirmative action programs in various forms. Less than a week after the Bakke decision, the Court let stand a lower court’s ruling that permitted quantitative “goals” for the hiring and promotion of women and minorities. For almost fifteen years after Bakke the Court seemed to agree that the lingering effects of slavery, segregation, and blatant discrimination—and perhaps the continuation of more subtle biases— justified some institutionalized efforts to provide special assistance to racial minorities in employment and education. In the mid-1990s, however, those assumptions were challenged anew. The Supreme Court decision in Adarand Constructors v. Peña (1995), for example, ruled that a federal policy mandating that a certain percentage of construction projects receiving funding from the Department of Transportation be set aside for minority-owned companies was unconstitutional.
Bibliography
Cahn, Steven M. The Affirmative Action Debate. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Herring, Cedric, and Loren Henderson. "From Affirmative Action to Diversity: Toward a Critical Diversity Perspective." Critical Sociology 38.5 (2012): 629–43. Print.
Kojima, Fuhito. "School Choice: Impossibilities for Affirmative Action." Games and Economic Behavior 75.2 (2012): 685–93. Print.
Leonhardt, David. "Rethinking Affirmative Action." New York Times. New York Times, 13 Oct. 2012. Web. 3 June 2015.
Pierce, Jennifer. Racing for Innocence: Whiteness, Gender, and the Backlash Against Affirmative Action. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2012. Print.