Trial: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

For our class' fourth EOTO, the case chosen to be presented was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). The case had deep implications for the affirmative action system as it is today, as well as the legality of reparations, fair housing acts, and so on.

Allan Bakke was a thirty-five-year-old white male who applied to the University of California Medical School at Davis two times: he was rejected twice. In his first application, it was simply a case of his MCAT scores not being high enough. However, Bakke retook the MCAT and achieved an exemplary score; Bakke reapplied with this score while meeting all other requirements for admission.

Bakke was denied admission once more. At the time, the university had an affirmative action system where sixteen out of one hundred spots in each entering class were reserved for applicants who wished to be considered as "economically and/or educationally disadvantaged" applicants and were minorities. These applicants were considered for admission separately from other applicants.

Bakke sued the university under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming that he was excluded from a federally funded program because of his race. In both years where Bakke applied, there were applicants under the affirmative action program who scored lower than him. The case would make its way to the Supreme Court (For a more complete summarization of the case, view this source for my argument).

A march during the case.

In my oral argument, I spoke in the context of a legal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The basis of my argument was that since there were merely reserved spots for minorities, not a "bonus" to their applications, there was no preferential treatment of minority applicants nor maltreatment of Bakke. 

I also cited the Supreme Court of California's ruling, which stated that the University's intention of combatting minority underrepresentation in the medical community was "sufficiently important to justify petitioner's remedial use of race."

However, this argument would not hold up in the Supreme Court. There were four separate rulings in the case, and the first and fourth ruled for Bakke. The first ruled that Bakke had a right to sue under Title XI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the fourth ruled that the university's system of affirmative action was in violation of the equal protection clause, so Bakke would be admitted.

The reason for the fourth ruling was that the university used a set number of reserved spots to be reserved for minorities. Since it was impossible for a non-minority student to qualify for these spots, it was illegal. However, the Supreme Court's second and third rulings were the most important for the case.

They ruled that using race as a factor for admissions was allowed under the Equal Protection Clause and that the university could continue to do so. However, there could not be a separate admissions pool for minority applicants, everyone had to compete for the same spots: no reservations. Most importantly, the ruling established that race could be counted as a positive factor in order to make up for underrepresented minorities.

This is the system that universities use today as their affirmative action programs, or at least something close to this. Affirmative action does not guarantee spots for minorities in universities but allows the fact that they are a minority to be considered and rewarded.