Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Case Study

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke centered around a challenge to a medical school's admissions policy in the 1970s.

Case Facts

Allan Bakke, a white male, applied to the University of California Davis Medical School in 1973 and 1974. He had strong academic credentials, including a higher grade point average (GPA) and test scores than many other applicants.

UC Davis Medical School rejected Bakke's application both times.

At the time, the school had a special admissions program that reserved 16 out of the 100 entering class seats for "disadvantaged" minority students. However, it used multiple factors beyond just race, test scores, and GPAs.

Bakke sued the school system in state court. He argued that the school admitted less qualified minority applicants over him because of its racial quota system.

Bakke claimed that the admissions policy discriminated against him based on his race. He also contended that the program violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

UC Davis (the respondent) argued that its race-conscious admissions program was necessary to:

• Promote diversity in higher education
• Address past discrimination against minority groups

UC stressed the educational benefits of a diverse student body. It claimed diversity enhanced the learning experience for all students.

Lower Court Decisions

The Superior Court of California ruled in Bakke's favor. It said the university's special admissions program was unconstitutional and violated Title VI. The court ordered the medical school to admit Bakke.

On appeal, the California Supreme Court agreed. It affirmed the lower court's decision and prohibited the university from considering race in its admissions process.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case in 1977 and issued its decision in June 1978.

The Supreme Court Decision

In a complex 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court both affirmed and reversed parts of the lower court's judgment. Justice Lewis Powell penned the controlling opinion.

It said that the principles from the seminal Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case, which ended racial segregation in schools, also apply to college admissions. This meant that any use of race in admissions had to be carefully justified and couldn't unfairly disadvantage any racial group.

The opinion said that colleges and universities could use race as a factor in admissions decisions. However, rigid quota systems that reserved a specific number of seats for racial minorities were unconstitutional.

Strict Scrutiny

The Court explained that racial classifications triggered strict scrutiny. This is the strictest standard of judicial review. Under strict scrutiny, a policy must:

• Serve a compelling governmental interest
• Be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest

The opinion noted that diversity in higher education could be a compelling state interest. But UC's quota system wasn't narrowly tailored to achieve this goal. It went too far and unfairly discriminated against white applicants. Thus, it violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI.

Race in Admissions

The Court clarified that it's fine to consider race as one of several admissions factors to foster student body diversity. This is particularly true for programs in which some minority groups are traditionally underrepresented, like the medical profession.

As such, the court struck down the California Supreme Court's blanket prohibition on race consideration in admissions. But it also noted the complexities of race in admissions programs. For example, Asian American students might not need the same special consideration other minority groups do.

Quotas

Regardless, the Court said it's not okay to use strict racial quotas that set aside a specific number of spots just for minority students. Specifically, the Court held that quotas:

• Don't allow for individual consideration of each applicant's qualifications
• Violate equal protection of the laws by treating applicants solely based on race
• Unfairly disadvantaged applicants who aren't part of the favored groups
• Don't truly achieve diversity

The Court also cautioned that quotas can create reverse discrimination. This occurs when policies meant to help minority groups discriminate against the majority.

Since UC couldn't prove it would have rejected Bakke without the unconstitutional quota system, the Court ordered the school to admit him.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court in part and reversed in part.

Additional Opinions

Five justices drafted separate opinions in Bakke. All concurred in part and dissented in part.

Justice Stevens

Justice John Paul Stevens penned an opinion joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justices Stewart and Rehnquist. They agreed that UC should admit Bakke and that the special admissions program discriminated against white applicants.

But it also went a step further, saying that race shouldn't be used as a factor at all in admissions decisions.

Justice Brennan

Justices White, Thurgood Marshall, and Blackmun joined in an opinion by Justice Brennan.

Brennan's opinion agreed that diversity in education is important. But it argued that the Court should apply intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, to further remedial purposes like past discrimination. It said that UC's program was constitutional.

Separate Opinions

Justices White, Thurgood Marshall, and Blackmun also each penned their own opinions. They all disagreed with ordering Bakke's admission. But they agreed with Powell that consideration of race in university admissions is permissible.

Other conclusions of note from these opinions include:

• Justice White: Agreed that racial quotas were impermissible but under Title VI rather than the Constitution
• Justice Marshall: Strongly supported the program's constitutionality in light of historical racial discrimination and the need for remedial measures
• Justice Blackmun: Also found the program was constitutional, stressing the necessity of race-conscious admissions to achieve diversity and equality in higher education

The unusual number of separate opinions in Bakke reflects the complexity and divisiveness of affirmative action and race in university admissions.

Impact of the Bakke Decision

The multiple opinions also contributed to some confusion about the precise holding of the case. Brennan's opinion represented the views of four justices. But it wasn't the controlling opinion of the Court. Justice Powell's opinion was.

The majority applied strict scrutiny and found the program unconstitutional. But it still allowed for some consideration of race in admissions.

The Bollinger Cases

The Supreme Court notably built upon this precedent in two 2003 cases. Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger both dealt with the University of Michigan.

The Grutter Court upheld an admissions policy at the university's law school. The policy considered race as one factor among many, like what Justice Powell suggested in Bakke.

In Gratz, the Court struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy. This policy used a point system that gave significant weight to an applicant's race. The Court viewed this as too close to the type of quota system rejected in Bakke.

Affirmative Action After Bakke

The Bakke decision had far-reaching implications for affirmative action policies in higher education. It established the principle that diversity can be a compelling interest in the context of university admissions.

The ruling provided a framework for how universities could consider race in admissions, allowing for race-conscious policies that avoided rigid quotas in favor of more flexible, individualized consideration of applicants.

It reflected a compromise between competing views on affirmative action by rejecting both colorblind absolutism and rigid racial preferences. For decades, this framework evolved in subsequent cases.

But, in 2023, the Supreme Court effectively ended the use of race as a factor in college admissions.

Bakke Overturned

In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), the Court ruled that even limited consideration of race in admissions decisions violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It reasoned that race-based admissions:

• Treat students differently based on race
• Promote harmful stereotypes
• Don't have a clear end point

The Court rejected Bakke's diversity rationale and required colleges to pursue diversity through race-neutral means. Accordingly, Bakke is no longer binding precedent.

The 2023 ruling dramatically altered the legal landscape established in Bakke.