Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
"Regents of the University of California v. Bakke" is a landmark Supreme Court case that addresses the complexities of affirmative action in college admissions. In the 1970s, the University of California at Davis implemented a policy reserving a portion of its medical school slots for minority students to promote diversity. Alan Bakke, a white male applicant, was denied admission despite having higher qualifications than many students admitted under this policy, leading him to argue that the admissions program violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Supreme Court ultimately delivered a divided ruling: it struck down the specific dual admissions system used by the university while establishing that race could be considered as one of many factors in admissions decisions. The case underscored the ongoing debate over affirmative action, highlighting differing judicial perspectives on the use of racial preferences in educational settings. Despite its critical importance, the ruling left many questions about the standards of scrutiny for such policies unresolved, contributing to the evolving discussion on equity and access in higher education. The Bakke decision remains a pivotal reference point in discussions of race, admissions, and the pursuit of diversity in educational institutions.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Date: June 28, 1978
Citation: 438 U.S. 265
Issue: Affirmative action in education
Significance: The Supreme Court held that educational institutions may not use rigid quotas in their admissions policies but may take race into account in order to increase minority enrollment.
By the 1970s many colleges and graduate schools were using affirmative action programs as part of admission policies, usually granting preferences to members of disadvantaged minority groups in order to increase their statistical representation. The medical school of the University of California at Davis instituted a program that reserved sixteen out of one hundred openings for minority students. Alan Bakke, a white male, was denied admission, even though his grades and test scores were significantly higher than those of most students who were admitted under the set-aside program. Bakke claimed that the policy violated both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The university was unable to certify that Bakke would not have been admitted without the special admissions policy. When the controversial case was appealed to the Supreme Court, it was accompanied by fifty-eight amicus curiae briefs.
In Bakke, a divided Court made two rulings. By a 5–4 vote, the Court struck down the university’s dual system of admissions, which meant that Bakke was accepted into the medical school. In another 5–4 vote, the Court declared that schools could take race into account as one among several factors promoting diversity. Four justices insisted that the 1964 statute prohibited all racial preferences, and four justices found no constitutional or statutory violation in set-aside programs for disadvantaged minorities. Because Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., voted with the majority in both rulings, he delivered the controlling opinion in the case. Powell emphasized that each applicant should have the “right to individualized consideration without regard to race.” He did not speak for a majority, however, when he advocated use of the compelling state interest test for deciding which racial preferences were permissible.
The Bakke case did not provide much guidance on the affirmative action issue. Because of the variety of opinions in the case, it was unclear which level of judicial scrutiny should be used in evaluating programs, and the majority ruling did not explicitly prohibit the use of statistical goals and timetables, which were similar to quotas in result. In the late 1990s there was a strong reaction against the use of racial and gender preferences, and the Court in Adarand Constructors v. Peña (1995) held that all preferences must be justified according to the compelling state interest test.
Bibliography
O’Neill, Timothy. Bakke and the Politics of Equality. New York: Oxford UP, 1985. Print.
Pruitt, Lisa R. “The False Choice between Race and Class and Other Affirmative Action Myths.” Buffalo Law Review 63.4 (2015): 981–1060. Index to Legal Periodicals & Books Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Schwartz, Bernard. Behind Bakke: Affirmative Action and the Supreme Court. New York: NYUP, 1988. Print.
Spann, Girardeau A. The Law of Affirmative Action: Twenty-Five Years of Supreme Court Decisions on Race and Remedies. New York: NYUP, 2000. Print.
Walker, Anders. “A Lawyer Looks at Civil Disobedience: Why Lewis F. Powell Jr. Divorced Diversity from Affirmative Action.” University Of Colorado Law Review 86.4 (2015): 1229–72. Index to Legal Periodicals & Books Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 8 Jan. 2016.