Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

438 U.S. 265 (1978), argued 12 Oct. 1977, decided 28 June 1978 by vote of 5 to 4; Powell for the Court, Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun concurring in part and dissenting in part. Allan Bakke wanted to be a physician. The University of California Medical School at Davis sought greater racial and ethnic diversity in its student body. The conflict between these two goals produced the first major constitutional test of affirmative action. It also posed an intractable conundrum: how to overcome the tension between an individual's claim to equal treatment by a state, and that state's responsibility to foster some degree of equality among its citizens.

Bakke was one of 2,664 applicants for one hundred entering positions at the Davis medical school in 1972. Eighty‐four slots were filled through the regular admissions program; sixteen were filled through a special admissions program—a distinct and separate process established in 1970 to address the faculty's concern over the paucity of African‐American, Asian, Latino, and Native American students. Grade point average and standard test score requirements were much less stringent than for students admitted under the regular program.

Rejected twice by the university, Bakke filed a lawsuit alleging that the Davis program violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, forbidding racial or ethnic preferences in programs supported by federal funds, and that the university's practice of setting aside positions for minorities denied him equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The university agreed that racial classifications are disfavored because racial characteristics are generally irrelevant to permissible state objectives. However, the meritocratic promise of nondiscrimination was offset by the state's equally compelling concern for the victims of past and continuing racial injustice. The university also stressed the program's practical benefits: enriched medical education through a diverse student body, successful role models for minority youth, and improved medical services to minority communities.

Both the state trial court and state supreme court ruled that racially exclusionary preferences constituted a quota and that such quotas, absent a finding of prior discrimination by the university itself, were a denial of equal protection.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that a university may consider racial criteria as part of a competitive admissions process so long as “fixed quotas” were not used. But the holding masked a sharply divided Court with six separate opinions. Four justices (John Paul Stevens, Warren Burger, Potter Stewart, and William Rehnquist) preferred to address the statutory rather than the constitutional issue. The “plain meaning” of Title VI and its “broad prohibition against the exclusion of any individual” (pp. 412–413) on racial grounds from a publicly funded program were sufficient grounds, in their judgment, to order Bakke admitted.

A second group (William J. Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Byron White, and Harry Blackmun) saw no difference between the commands of the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. Absent a stigmatizing intent or effect, one “drawn on the presumption that one race is inferior to another” or one that places “the weight of government behind racial hatred and separation” (pp. 357–358), there was no reason to trigger the strictest equal protection test. However, the “mere rationality” test deployed in cases not affecting fundamental rights or suspect classifications was too lenient. Instead, Brennan opted for the middle test of heightened scrutiny. So long as the state can demonstrate an important purpose and the means do not unduly burden “those least well represented in the political process” (p. 361), race‐conscious remedies to help members of groups that had suffered racially motivated injuries were constitutional (see Strict Scrutiny).

Justice Lewis Powell cast the deciding vote, joining with Steven's plurality on the illegality of the racial quota and in ordering Bakke admitted, while agreeing with Brennan's plurality on the permissibility of racial considerations in admissions. The decisive factor for Powell was the exclusionary nature of the Davis program. Since Bakke had been “totally foreclosed” (p. 305) from competing for the sixteen special positions, he had been denied equal protection. Racial quotas are allowed only when there was a past constitutional or legal violation identified by a properly authorized governmental body. Powell did find justification for less exclusionary affirmative action programs in the First Amendment's guarantee of academic freedom. In a truly competitive process, racial considerations could be taken into account as part of the university's interest in promoting a “diverse student body” (p. 312).

Affirmative action continues to be a central controversy in America's political and legal life. Bakke nibbled at the question, settling only the narrower issue of racial quotas in admissions to state supported schools and leaving later cases to test the propriety of affirmative action in other realms. Voters in California and Washington banned state and local affirmative action programs during the late 1990s. Texas and Florida adopted race‐neutral admission programs to their public universities. And the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Hopwood v. Texas (1996) held that diversity was not a compelling state interest.

In 2003 the Supreme Court reaffirmed the central tenets of Justice Powell's opinion. The Supreme Court upheld a flexible, race‐based admission program emphasizing diversity used by the University of Michigan's law school (Grutter v. Bollinger) while striking down a quota‐based admission program used by Michigan's undergraduate school (Gratz v. Bollinger). Race‐conscious admissions programs are on firmer legal ground than they have been in a generation.

.

See also Education; Race and Racism

Bibliography

• Timothy J. O'Neill, Bakke and the Politics of Equality (1985).
• Peter Schuck, Diversity in America (2003)

— Timothy J. O'Neill

• 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
• Vote: 5–4
• For the Court: Powell
• Concurring: Burger, Rehnquist, Stevens, and Stewart
• Dissenting: Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, and White

In 1972 there were 2,664 applicants for admission to the medical school of the University of California at Davis. From this large pool of applicants, the medical school intended to select 100 students. Eighty-four of the 100 openings were to be filled according to usual procedures of the standard admissions program. Sixteen of the 100 places were to be filled through a special affirmative action program designed to increase the number of disadvantaged students from certain minority groups, such as African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans.

Students applying for admission through the affirmative action program did not have to meet the same standards as students applying through the regular admissions program. For example, requirements for grade point averages and scores on standardized tests of scholastic aptitude and achievement were lower for those seeking admission through the special program.

Allan Bakke, a white male, wanted to become a doctor. In 1972 he applied through the regular program for admission to the Davis medical school. He was rejected even though his grade point average and standardized test scores were higher than those of several students admitted to the medical school through the affirmative action program.

In 1973 Bakke again tried to gain admission to the Davis medical school. This time he was one of 3,737 applicants for 100 vacancies. Once again, 16 places were set aside for applicants through the special affirmative action program. Bakke was rejected a second time, even though he appeared to be more qualified, based on certain statistical indicators, than several applicants admitted through both the affirmative action program and the regular process.

Bakke claimed he was a victim of unequal and unfair treatment. He sued for admission to the state medical school.

The Issue

Bakke argued that the medical school's admissions program violated the “equal protection of the laws” guarantee of the 14th Amendment. Bakke also claimed that the university's affirmative action admissions program conflicted with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination based on race or ethnicity in programs supported by federal funds.

The University of California defended its special admissions program as necessary to compensate for past injustices suffered by members of certain disadvantaged groups. The special admissions program, university officials said, was one way to open new opportunities for individual members of groups that in the past had not enjoyed these opportunities to the same degree as other members of society.

Allan Bakke, however, questioned whether the affirmative action admissions program went too far in trying to provide new opportunities for members of certain disadvantaged groups. To Bakke, the medical school's affirmative action admissions program seemed to be “reverse discrimination” based on race or ethnicity. Therefore, he asserted, it violated federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court was so sharply divided in its response to this case that the majority could not agree on a common opinion for the Court. Lewis F. Powell was designated to announce the decision, but the four concurring justices wrote separate opinions, which were mixed in their reasons for supporting or opposing different aspects of the Court's decision.

A majority decided that Allan Bakke must be admitted to the University of California Medical School at Davis. Justice Powell noted that Bakke had been excluded from competition for one of the 16 positions reserved for individuals seeking admission through the special affirmative action program. Therefore, Powell concluded, Bakke had been denied “equal protection of the laws” as required by the 14th Amendment.

Justice Powell wrote, “The guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to all persons…. The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal.”

The Court held that a university may use admissions standards involving race or ethnicity as one part of a complex admissions process. But “fixed quotas”—guaranteeing a certain number of positions for students of a particular race or ethnicity—cannot be used. Race and ethnic background may be viewed favorably in making decisions about when to admit a person to a university program. But they cannot be the sole factor in determining whether to admit or reject someone.

Dissent

Justices William Brennan, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry Blackmun voted against admission of Bakke to the medical school. And they would have upheld the quota-based admissions system of the medical school. However, they joined with Justice Powell to permit “race conscious programs in the future,” as long as they are only one factor considered in a multifactor admissions process. Thus, the four dissenters from the decision to admit Bakke to the medical school blocked the other four justices (Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, and Potter Stewart), who would have prohibited any use of a person's race as a factor in deciding whom to admit to a university program.

The four dissenters defended the affirmative action admissions program of the medical school:

The Davis program does not simply advance less qualified applicants; rather it compensates applicants, who it is uncontested are fully qualified to study medicine, for educational disadvantages that it was reasonable to conclude were a product of state-fostered discrimination. Once admitted, these students must satisfy the same degree requirements as regularly admitted students.

Significance

This case was the Court's first major statement on whether affirmative action programs are constitutional. And the results were mixed. The rejection of Allan Bakke as a result of the medical school's special admissions program was declared in violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, race could be an important factor in admissions programs, as long as it was not the sole or dominating factor in making an admissions decision.

Allan Bakke certainly benefited from the Court's decision. He graduated in 1982 from the University of California Medical School at Davis and later served as a resident at the prestigious Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. However, the Bakke decision has had only slight impact on university admissions programs, which shun explicitly stated quotas but tend to consider race and ethnicity as important factors in admissions decisions. This matter remains complex and controversial.

See also Affirmative action

Sources

• Fred W. Friendly and Marth J. H. Elliott, “Bakke and the Equal Protection Clause”, in The Constitution: That Delicate Balance (New York: Random House, 1984).
• J. Harvie Wilkinson, From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and School Integration, 1954–1978 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979)

A 1978 decision by the Supreme Court, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S. Ct. 2733, 57 L. Ed. 2d 750, commonly referred to as Bakke, held that although the university unlawfully discriminated against a white applicant by denying him admission to its medical school solely on the basis of his race, the university may consider the race of an applicant in its admission procedure in order to attain ethnic diversity in its student body.

In 1972, Allan Bakke, a thirty-three-year-old white male engineer, applied for admission to the medical school of the University of California, Davis, and was not accepted. Bakke was one of 2,664 applicants that year for one hundred places. He applied again the next year and was again rejected. This second year, minority applicants with grade point averages, Medical College Admission Test scores, and other qualifications that were lower than Bakke's were accepted under a special minority admission program. This program set aside sixteen of the one hundred places in the entering class for minority groups titled blacks, Chicanos, Asians, and American Indians.

Following his second rejection, in 1974, Bakke instituted a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California against the university on the grounds that his rights had been violated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; the California Constitution; and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d et seq.), which proscribed the exclusion of any person from a federally funded program on the basis of race.

The California lower court ruled that the school's admission program was in violation of the state and federal constitutions and title VI, but it would not order the university to admit Bakke to the medical school, because Bakke had not shown that he would have won admission had there been no special minority program. Bakke then appealed to the California Supreme Court, which ruled that it was incumbent upon the university, not Bakke, to prove that he would not have been admitted if the special program had not been in effect. The school acknowledged that it could not satisfy the requirement, and the court ordered the university to admit Bakke. The university appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari (agreed to review the case), and the court order requiring Bakke's admission was suspended pending a decision by the High Court.

The Bakke case aroused intense controversy. Civil rights supporters feared that the Court might hold that specific policies could not be employed to remedy past discrimination. On the other side of the issue stood Bakke and his supporters, charging that Bakke's civil rights were being violated simply because of his race, which happened to be white. A great deal of weight hung over the Bakke case as it moved through the courts, and, with enormous publicity surrounding their decision, the Supreme Court justices were keenly aware of the case's importance.

On June 27, 1978, the Court divided sharply in its decision, presenting six separate opinions. Four justices chose to address only the statutory issue of title VI and found for Bakke, including his admission to the medical school, because the quota in the university's admission plan had clearly excluded Bakke on the basis of his race. Four justices addressed the larger constitutional issue of the Equal Protection Clause and found for the medical school because its intent was not to exclude Bakke but only to include individuals of other races for compelling government reasons. The deciding swing vote was cast by Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., who found for both. Powell's contention was that the title VI plurality was correct in that the university had violated the "plain meaning" of the Civil Rights Act, which proscribed discrimination based on race, and ordered Bakke admitted to the medical school. But Powell also found that the university could use "race-conscious" factors in selecting its applicants in order to achieve the benefits of a "diverse student body."

This divided decision settled the Bakke case, but it left the legal issue muddled: what actions, if any, could the state take to protect minorities in the marketplace? Subsequent court decisions struggled repeatedly over this primary civil rights question.

See: Colleges and Universities; Equal Protection; Strict Scrutiny; United Steelworkers v. Weber.

This law-related article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations, which can be found through legal research.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 8, 1977 Decided June 28, 1978
Full case name	Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke
Citations	438 U.S. 265 (more) 98 S. Ct. 2733; 57 L. Ed. 2d 750; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 5; 17 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1000; 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P8402
Prior history	Certiorari to the Supreme Court of California. Bakke v. Regents of University of Cal., 18 Cal. 3d 34, 132 Cal. Rptr. 680, 553 P.2d 1152, 1976 Cal. LEXIS 336 (1976)
Holding
The Court held that while affirmative action systems are constitutional, a quota system based on race is unconstitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell, Jr. William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
Majority	Powell (Parts I and V-C), joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun
Plurality	Powell (Part III-A), joined by White
Concur/dissent	Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun
Concur/dissent	White
Concur/dissent	Marshall
Concur/dissent	Blackmun
Concur/dissent	Stevens, joined by Burger, Stewart, Rehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on affirmative action. It bars quota systems in college admissions but affirms the constitutionality of affirmative action programs.

Contents 1 Case 2 Decision 3 See also 4 References 5 External links

Case

The Medical School of the University of California at Davis had two admissions programs for the entering class of 100 students - the regular admissions program and the special admissions program. Under the regular procedure, candidates whose overall under-graduate grade point averages fell below 2.5 on a scale of 4.0 were summarily rejected. About one out of six applicants was then given an interview, following which he or she was rated on a scale of 1 to 100 by each of the committee members (five in 1973 and six in 1974), the rating being based on the interviewers' summaries, overall grade point average, science courses grade point average, Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores, letters of recommendation, extracurricular activities, and other biographical data, all of which resulted in a total "benchmark score."

The full admissions committee then made offers of admission on the basis of their review of the applicants' files and their scores, considering and acting upon applications as they were received. The committee chairman was responsible for placing names on the waiting list and had discretion to include persons with "special skills." A separate committee, a majority of whom were members of minority groups, operated the special admissions program.

The 1973 and 1974 application forms, respectively, asked candidates whether they wished to be considered as "economically and/or educationally disadvantaged" applicants and members of a "minority group" (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans). If an applicant of a minority group was found to be "disadvantaged," he or she would be rated in a manner similar to the one employed by the general admissions committee.

Special candidates, however, did not have to meet the 2.5 grade point cutoff and were not ranked against candidates in the general admissions process. About one-fifth of the special applicants were invited for interviews in 1973 and 1974, following which they were given benchmark scores, and the top choices were then given to the general admissions committee, which could reject special candidates for failure to meet course requirements or other specific deficiencies. The special committee continued to recommend candidates until 16 special admission selections had been made.

No disadvantaged Caucasians were admitted under the special program, though many applied. Allan Bakke, a white male, applied to Davis in 1973 and 1974, in both years being considered only under the general admissions program. Though he had a 468 out of 500 score in 1973, he was rejected because no general applicants with scores less than 470 were being accepted after respondent's application, which was filed late in the year, had been processed and completed. At that time four special admission slots were still unfilled. In 1974 respondent applied early, and though he had a total score of 549 out of 600, he was again rejected. In neither year was his name placed on the discretionary waiting list. In both years special applicants were admitted with significantly lower scores than Bakke's.

After his second rejection, Bakke filed an action in state court for mandatory, injunctive, and declaratory relief to compel his admission to Davis, alleging that the special admissions program operated to exclude him on the basis of his race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a provision of the California Constitution, and 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which provides that no person shall on the ground of race or color be excluded from participating in any program receiving federal financial assistance). UC Davis Medical School counter-claimed for a declaration that its special admissions program was lawful.

The trial court found that the special program operated as a racial quota, because minority applicants in that program were rated only against one another, and 16 places in the class of 100 were reserved for them. Declaring that UC Davis Medical School could not take race into account in making admissions decisions, the court declared the program violated the Federal and State Constitutions and Title VI. The court did not order Bakke's admission, however, because there was no proof at trial that he would have been admitted but for the special program. The California Supreme Court, applying a strict-scrutiny standard, concluded that the special admissions program was not the least intrusive means of achieving the goals of the admittedly compelling state interests of integrating the medical facility, and increasing the number of doctors willing to serve minority patients. Without passing on the state constitutional or federal statutory grounds, the court held that UC Davis Medical School's special admissions program violated the Equal Protection Clause. Because the Medical School could not satisfy its burden of demonstrating that, absent the special program, Bakke would not have been admitted, the court ordered his admission to the Medical School.[1] Bakke began his studies at the University of California Medical School at Davis in fall of 1978, graduated in 1982, and later served as a resident at the prestigious Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Decision

The court ruled 5-4 in Bakke's favor on June 23, 1978. Justice Lewis Powell delivered the opinion of the court that race could be only one of numerous factors used by discriminatory boards, such as those of college admissions. Powell found that quotas insulated minority applicants from competition with the regular applicants and were thus unconstitutional because they discriminated against non-minority applicants. Powell however stated that universities could use race as a plus factor. He cited the Harvard College Admissions Program which had been filed as an amicus curiae as an example of a constitutionally valid affirmative action program which took into account all of an applicant's qualities including race in a "holistic review".

The decision was split with four justices firmly against all use of race in admissions processes, four justices for the use of race in university admissions, and Justice Powell, who was against the UC Davis Medical School quota system of admission, but found that universities were allowed to use race as a factor in admission. Title VI of the civil rights statute prohibits racial discrimination in any institution that receives federal funding. Justices Burger, Stewart, Rehnquist, and Stevens supported a strict interpretation and, thus, ruled in favor of Bakke. Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and White, however, disagreed with a rigid and literal interpretation of Title VI. The nature of this split opinion created controversy over whether Powell's opinion was binding. However, in 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court affirmed Powell's opinion, rejecting "quotas", but allowing race to be one "factor" in college admissions to meet the compelling interest of diversity.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 438
• Grutter v. Bollinger, a similar case in 2003

References

1978 Case

External links

• Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) (opinion full text).

v • d • e Affirmative action in the United States Supreme Court decisions Brown v. Board of Education (1954) • Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) • Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) • Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) • Parents v. Seattle (2007) • Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) Federal legislation and edicts Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) • Executive Order 10925 (1961) • Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Executive Order 11246 (1965) State initiatives Proposition 209 (CA, 1996) • Initiative 200 (WA, 1998) • Proposal 2 (MI, 2006) • Initiative 424 (NE, 2008) People Ward Connerly • Arthur Fletcher

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)