UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS V. BAKKE Opinion of Powell, J.

Facts: - The Medical School of California at Davis has a special admissions program which is designed to assure the admission of a specified number of students from certain minority groups. The said program was challenged by Bakke for being violative of the Equal Protection Clause. - When the medschool opened in 1968 with a class of 50 students, there were only 3 Asians but no blacks, Mexican-Americans and American Indians. At that time, there was no special admissions program yet. - Over the next 2 years, the faculty devised a program to increase the representation of disadvantaged students.
Regular Admission Procedure - Candidate submit application beginning July of the year preceding the school year for which he/she is applying for - Candidates with undergraduate GPA of below 2.5 in a scale of 4.0 were summarily rejected - About one out of 6 applicants was invited for a personal interview in which the candidate is rated at a scale of 1 to 100 by interviewers and 4 other members of the admission committee. - This rating embraced the interviewers summaries, candidates overall GPA, GPA in science courses, scores on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT), letters of recommendation, extracurricular activities and other biographical data - Ratings are added together to arrive at the candidates benchmark score - The full committee then review the file and scores of each applicant and made offers of admissions at a rolling basis, that is, the application is considered as it is received, with later applications being considered against those still on file from earlier in the year. - The chair is responsible for placing names on waitlist - Admitted candidates are not placed in a strict numerical order but the chair had discretion to include persons with special skills Special Admission Procedure - This procedure operated with a separate set of committee, majority of whom were members of minority groups. - In the 1973 application form, the candidates were asked to indicate whether they wished to be considered as economically and/or educationally disadvantaged. - In the 1974 app form, the question was whether they wished to be considered as members of a minority group which the medschool viewed as blacks, chicanos, Asians, and American Indians. - If the questions were affirmatively answered, their app form shall be forwarded to the special admissions committee. - No formal definition was given for disadvantaged but the chairman of the special committee screened app to se whether it reflected economic or educational deprivation - Operated similar to the regular admissions procedure except that it does not apply a 2.5 cut-off GPA - About 1/5 of the toal number of candidates were invited for interview in 1973 and 1974 - Following the interview, they are given benchmark score - Special committee present their top choices to the general admissions committee - Regular committee did not rate or compare the special against the regular candidates but they could reject recommended special candidates for failure to meet course requirements or other specifications - The special committee continue to recommend applicants until all the slots allocated by the faculty vote are filled (when the class was 50, there were allocated slots for 8 and 16 when the class was 100)

Although disadvantaged whites applied to the special program in large numbers, none received an offer of admission. o In 1974, the special committee explicitly considered disadvantaged applicants = members of the designated minority groups. Allan Bakke is a white male who applied in 1973 and 1974. considered for general admissions program and was invited for interview o 1973: Bakke was interviewed by Dr. Theodore West and the interviewer considered him a desirable applicant. Bakke has a benchmark score of 468 out of 5000 but was still rejected. His application came in late in the year and no applicants in the general admissions process with scores lower than 470 were accepted after Bakkes app was completed. o At that time, 4 special admissions slot was unfilled Bakke was not considered for this. After being rejected in 1973, Bakke wrote to Dr. George H. Lowrey (Associate Dean and Chair of the Admissions Committee) protesting that the special admissions procedure operated as a racial and ethnic quota Bakke applied in 1974 early in the year and his student interviewer gave him a 94, finding him friendly, well tempered, conscientious and delightful to speak with. o On the other hand, his other interviewer Dr. Lowrey found him rather limited in his approach to the problems of the medical profession and found disturbing Bakks very definite opinions which were based more on his own

personal views than upon study of the total problem. gave him an 86 = lowest of his 6 ratings which was a total of 549/6000 o Bakke was rejected and in both years, he was not considered by Dr. Lowrey for the waitlist - In both years, applicants were admitted under the special program with GPA and MCAT scores, and benchmark scores significantly lower than Bakkes. - After 1974 rejection: Bakke filed a suit in the Supreme Court of California o Sought mandatory, injunctive and declaratory relief compelling his admission to the Medschool. o Alleged that the special admissions program was based on race in violation og the Equal Protection Clause under the 14 Amendment - Trial court found that the special program operated a racial quota because minority applicants were only rated against each other and 16 slots of the 100 were reserved for them o Held that the challenged program was violative of the Federal and State Consti. o Court however refused to order his admission because he failed to prove that he would have been admitted if not for the special program. - Bakke appealed from the portion denying the admission while UC appealed for declaring the program unlawful o California SC accepted the findings of the trial court with respect to the unlawfulness of the program. o The strict scrutiny was made to apply court agreed that the goals of integrating the medical profession and increasing the number of physicians willing to serve members of minority, the special program was NOT THE LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS o It was held that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment required that no applicant be rejected because of his race and in favor of another who is less qualified, as measures by standards applied w/o regard to race. o On Bakkes appeal, court ruled that since Bakke has established the that the University is had discriminated against him on the basis of his race, burden of proof shifted to the University to demonstrate that he would not have been admitted even in the absence of the special program. The university conceded that it cannot carry out this burden o California court amended its opinion to direct the trial court to enter judgment ordering Bakkes admission to the medschool. Issue: W/N the special admission program is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 W/N SC can order Petitioner to admit Bakke into the medschool Held: Yes and Yes. Ratio: - The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funding. If an agency is found violating Title VI, it could lose its federal funding. o This opinion looked into the legislative history of Title VI in order to explain the Equal Protection Clause (No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.) - Congress was at that time confronted with discrimination against Negro citizens at the hands of recipients of federal moneys. In addressing the problem, proponents of the Title VI repeatedly declare that the bill enacted constitutional principles. there is a constitutional restriction against discrimination in the use of federal funds and Title VI simply spells out the procedure to be used in enforcing that restriction. - There was also no definition of discrimination in Title VI proponents simply point to the Constitution or other existing law for its definition. - Legislative intent was to proscribe only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause (EPC). Application of Strict Scrutiny - Petitioner University argue that the strict scrutiny test should be applied only to cases where racial classification results to the disadvantage of the discrete and insular minorities. Court held that this has never been considered as a requisite for strict judicial scrutiny o Discreteness and insularity may be relevant only in deciding whether or not to add new types of classifications to the list of suspect categories or whether a particular classification survives as examination.

Racial and ethnic classifications are subject to stringent examination w/o regard to these additional characteristics. - SC held that the special admission program is undeniably a classification based on race and ethnic background o The 14th amendment extends to all persons and the rights established are personal rights. Guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing for an individual and something else for another (who is of different color/race) - The EPC only became a popular defense for liberty and property after the era of substantive due process came to a close by this time, it was no longer possible to peg the guarantees of the 14th Amendment to the struggle for equality for one minority. o The US has become a nation of minorities, with the majority simply being composed of various minority groups - While the framers of the 14th Amendment were aiming to bridge the vast distance between members of the Negro race and the white majority, the amendment itself was couched in universal terms without reference to color, ethnic origin, or condition of prior servitude. a broader principle than would have been necessary to simply meet the particular and immediate plight of the newly freed Negro people. o The legislation was broadened specifically in 1870 when the phrase was changed to all citizens rather than citizens only. o Hence, while many of the court decision upholding EPC were for the benefit of Negros being discriminated against by the white majority, the EPC need not be characterized solely based on these results - The Petitioner is asking the court to apply a new standard to EPC: that a classification shall only be suspect if its effects are no longer benign. o This line of thinking is asking the court to go back in time and revert to the two-group classification of the society, where there is clearly a majority white and a minority white. o Courts would be asked to evaluate the extent of the prejudice and consequent harm suffered by various minority groups. the sociological and political analysis required for such evaluation is not within the courts competence. - Furthermore, there is also serious problems of justice connected with the idea of giving preference in applying the strict scrutiny test: o It may not always be clear that so-called preference is in fact benign courts may be asked to validate burdens imposed upon individual members if a particular group in order to advance the groups general interest noting in the consti. supports the notion that individuals may be asked to suffer otherwise impermissible burdens in order to enhance the societal standing of their ethnic groups. o Preferential programs may also reinforce stereotype holding that certain groups are unable to achieve success w/o the special protection based on a factor having no relationship with individual worth. o There is a measure of inequity in forcing innocent persons in the respondent Bakkes position to bear the burdens of redressing grievances not of their making. - Disparate constitutional tolerance of such classifications may sell serve to exacerbate racial and ethnic antagonism rather than alleviate them. Precedent to upholding preferential programs: - Petitioners direct the courts attention to previous decisions allegedly approving preferential classifications without applying the most exacting scrutiny court find this untenable o School desegregation cases racial classification here were designed as remedies for the vindication of constitutional entitlement. Moreover, the scope of the remedies were not permitted to exceed the extent of the violations o Employment discrimination court had approved the retroactive award of seniority to a class of Negro truckdrivers who had been victims of discrimination, not just by the socirty at large but by the respondent of the case; while this decision impose burdens on other employees, it was held necessary to make the victims whole for injuries suffered on account of unlawful employment discrimination. preference here is used as remedy for constitutional or statutory violations resulting in identified race-based injuries to individuals held entitled to preference. o Court has never approved preferential classifications in the absence of proved constitutional or statutory violations - Petitioners also argue that the gender-based classifications are not subjected to this level of scrutiny o

Court said that gender-based distinctions are less likely to create the analytical and practical problems present in preferential programs premised on race or ethnicity. The incidence of burdens imposed by preferential classifications based on gender is clear unlike race-based classification which presents far more complex and intractable problems. - Petitioner also point out the Lau v. Nichols case, where the court allegedly upheld a classification based on race exacting inquiry ordinarily accorded to suspect classification. In the said case, the court held that the failure of the San Francisco school system to provide remedial English instruction for some 1,800 students of oriental ancestry who spoke no English amounted to a violation of Title VI. The court here found that the students were denied a meaningful opportunity to participate in the educational program and thus remanded the case so that a remedial order may be issued. o In upholding the preference, the court is in fact saying that refusal to provide remedial English is tantamount to depriving the students of meaningful learning. The preference did not result to a denial of relevant benefit (meaningful opportunity to participate in educational program) to anyone else. - The same remedial purpose is not present in the special admissions program the preferential slots for the 16 students has foreclosed from competition 16 individuals who are not members of the minority when a classification denies an individual opportunities or benefits enjoyed by others solely because of their race or ethnicity must be regarded as suspect. Means and Purpose Test: - The programs purpose: (1) reduce historical deficit of traditionally disfavoured minorities in medical schools and in the medical profession; (2) countering the effects of societal discrimination; (3) increasing numbers of individuals in areas currently underserved; and (4) obtaining the educational benefits that flow from an ethnically diverse student body. - The state has a legitimate and substantial interest in ameliorating or eliminating where feasible the effects of identified discrimination. o Governmental interest in preferring members of the injured groups at the expense of others is substantial since the legal rights of the victims must be vindicated. the extent of the injury and consequent remedy will have been judicially, legislatively or administratively defined. otherwise, government has no greater interest in helping one individual than in refraining from harming another. o The Petitioner is a school and thus not in any position to make the legislative formulation of policy or the adjudication of particular claims of illegality that can support/justify a preferential program. - As for improving the delivery of health services to underserved areas: the University admits that it cannot assure that the minority doctors who entered under the program will all practice in a disadvantaged community. It was not shown that the preferential program will likely have a significant effect on the problem. - As for attainment of a diverse student body: It is a constitutionally permissible goal for academic institutions in line with academic freedom, i.e. selection of its student body. It was believed that the atmosphere of speculation, experiment and creation essential to higher learning is promoted by a diverse student body. in arguing this, the university is invoking its rights under the 1st Amendment. o Physicians serve a heterogeneous population and the diversity may brings to the medschool experiences and outlooks that enrich training to better equip the students when they service humanity. o But while the universities can indeed exercise their discretion in selection, it must not disregard constitutionally protected individual rights. o Question remains whether indeed this interest of the school creates the necessity for racially-based preferential program. - The state interest in diversity is not represented by the simplistic goal of ethnic diversity. It is only one aspect of it and it encompasses a broader array of qualifications and characteristics. - There have also been other admissions program that takes into account ones race or ethnicity but only as a plus and not as a controlling factor or something that would insulate an individual from comparison with all other candidates (the Harvard admissions program example). o This kind of program looks into the many qualities that are presented by candidates and the weight that the admissions committee attribute them

o o

Decision: - When a State's distribution of benefits or imposition of burdens hinges on ancestry or the color of a person's skin, that individual is entitled to a demonstration that the challenged classification is necessary to promote a substantial state interest. Petitioner has failed to carry this burden. For this reason, that portion of the California court's judgment holding petitioner's special admissions program invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment must be affirmed. - In enjoining petitioner from ever considering the race of any applicant, however, the courts below failed to recognize that the State has a substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions program involving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin. For this reason, so much of the California court's judgment as enjoins petitioner from any consideration of the race of any applicant must be reversed. - The Petitioner admitted that it cannot prove that if the special program was not in place, Bakke would not be admitted. Hence, the order for his admission is sustained. Stevens, J. Concurring and dissenting opinion - The court should affirm the judgment of the trial court regardless of the courts opinion about the legality of the special admissions program. This is because the suit is not a class action but a controversy between two specific litigants. The decision was in fact pertaining only to whether Bakke can have the court order the university to admit him into the Medschool. The suit was therefore clearly limited to the Universitys consideration of Bakkes application. Furthermore, the California Supreme Court directed the trial court to order Bakkes admission and thus there is no outstanding injunction forbidding any consideration of racial criteria in processing application. question on whether race can ever be used as a factor in an admissions decision is not an issue in this case and the SCs discussion of this issue is inappropriate. - There is also no need to decide on the congruence (or lack thereof) of Title VI with the Constitution. The meaning of Title VI is clear: race cannot be the basis of excluding anyone from participation in a federally funded program. Nothing is the legislative history justifies the conclusion that the broad language of the statute should not be given its natural meaning there is nothing in the debates or prior interpretation that suggests that its place in the Civil Rights Act is simply that of a constitutional appendage. It has an independent force with language and emphasis in addition to that found in the Constitution. - The Universitys belated claim that the Title VI cannot be enforced by a private litigant is unpersuasive. the Courts have previously concluded or assumed that a private action may be maintained under Title VI and this is also supported by the legislative history of Title VI itself.

depends on the year to year circumstances of the student body and the applicants of the incoming class. There is therefore no set number of slots to be reserved for a certain group. This is not a more sophisticated way of introducing race-based standards in the admissions. The difference of this type of preferential admission is that it is not facially discriminatory like the UCs special admissions program.