Regents of the University of California v. Bakke | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was a case brought to the Supreme Court over the use of Affirmative Action in the college admission process. The University of California at Davis Medical School created a minimum minority student quota for the admissions department to fill each year. Bakke, a two-time UC-Davis Med School rejected applicant, sued the school for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts. Ultimately, the Supreme Court justices ruled in support of the goals of Affirmative Action because of incorporation, the idea that the states must adhere to the protections of the Bill of Rights. They also stated that Bakke was, in fact, denied equal protection. This decision, because it was so muddled, did not set long-term precedents or clarifications concerning Affirmative Action.
What is Affirmative Action? Affirmative Action is a policy, usually carried out by schools, businesses, government entities, and federal contractors, in which individuals of minority racial status are afforded preferential treatment on the basis of race. Affirmative action came about as part of a desire to rectify the traditional underrepresentation of minority peoples in desirable professions and universities, which negatively impacted their financial and social conditions.
0:02 Affirmative action is a controversial and important set of laws that can be confusing and challenging. One crucial supreme court case that helps us better understand affirmative action is the 1978 case of Regents of the University City of California v Bakke. Historical context is key to properly understand the case. It is well known that African Americans
0:22 suffered centuries of slavery and then segregation in the United States that gave them educational and economic disadvantages. The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s argued not only for the end of segregation and legal inequality, but also for special advantages for minorities and federal contracts and college admissions. President Lyndon Johnson asserted that equal opportunity was not enough.
0:46 Affirmative action or preferential consideration was necessary to truly bring about equality for all. This set up a debate between those who believed that affirmative action contradicted the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Which declares. No state shall deny to any person with its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws against those who believed that the federal government needed to take
1:08 action to remedy the persistent and lingering consequences of discrimination in light of affirmative action. The university of California at Davis established a special admissions program for minority students applying to their medical school. Out of 100 possible positions in medical school admissions each year, 16 would be set aside for minority applicants. Such admissions programs are sometimes called reverse discrimination.
1:31 In 1973, the average applicant to the regular program had a 3.49 GPA, while the average applicant to the minority program had a 2.88 GPA. Allan Bakke was a Caucasian us. Marine who had a master’s degree in mechanical engineering and a 3.46 GPA, but was twice rejected by the UC Davis medical school admissions committee.
1:54 He sued the school and argued that UC Davis violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and title six of the Civil Rights Act, which said that no person shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The supreme court heard Bakke’s case in 1978.
2:16 The court’s decision was one of the more confusing of any Supreme Court case in history, as it contained a perplexing jumble of differing opinions. The justices essentially held that affirmative action programs could take race into account as one of many factors in admissions, but that they could not have fixed quotas for a certain number of minorities as UC Davis had done.
2:37 Therefore, in a slim five to four majority, they supported the goals of affirmative action while deciding that Bakke had been denied equal protection due to the methods of the special admissions program. The muddled decision failed to set long term clarifications for applying the principle of equal protection. 25 years later, the court would take up affirmative action programs again in the case Grutter v.
3:00 Bollinger 2003. That case would help further clarify affirmative action, but the question of how to carry out the fundamental constitutional principle of equality remains a central question of our republic to this day. Tune in next week as we will continue discussing affirmative of action with the case of Gruter v. Bollinger 2003. And for more information on this and many other important court cases throughout
3:21 history, be sure to check out the other videos in our Homework Help series.