Legal Definitions - Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) is a landmark 1978 Supreme Court case that addressed the legality of affirmative action policies in university admissions. The Court ruled that while universities cannot use fixed racial quotas to reserve a specific number of spots for minority applicants, they can consider race as one factor among many in a holistic admissions process designed to achieve a diverse student body.

The central finding was that a university's admissions system that sets aside a predetermined number of seats exclusively for applicants of certain racial or ethnic backgrounds violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These provisions prohibit discrimination based on race. The Court reasoned that such a quota system amounted to discrimination against non-minority applicants.

However, the Court also clarified that considering an applicant's race or ethnicity as one of many factors—alongside academic performance, essays, extracurricular activities, unique life experiences, and other qualifications—is permissible. This approach allows universities to pursue the educational benefits of a diverse student body without imposing rigid, discriminatory quotas.

Here are some examples illustrating the principles established by Regents of the University of California v. Bakke:

• Example 1 (Impermissible Quota System): Imagine a highly competitive state engineering school that decides to reserve 15% of its incoming class seats specifically for applicants from underrepresented minority groups. Under this system, if 100 students are admitted, 15 seats are automatically filled by minority applicants, even if some non-minority applicants have higher test scores, GPAs, and more impressive extracurriculars. This scenario would be illegal under Bakke because it establishes a rigid racial quota, preventing qualified individuals from competing for all available spots solely based on their race.

  This illustrates the term because the engineering school's policy creates a fixed set-aside based purely on race, which the Supreme Court in Bakke deemed unconstitutional. It treats race as a definitive and exclusive basis for admission for a certain percentage of the class, rather than as one factor among many in an individualized review.

• Example 2 (Permissible Holistic Review): Consider a private liberal arts college that reviews each applicant's file comprehensively. Admissions officers evaluate academic transcripts, standardized test scores, letters of recommendation, essays, extracurricular involvement, unique talents, leadership potential, socioeconomic background, and the applicant's racial or ethnic background. The goal is to admit a class with a wide range of perspectives and experiences, believing this enhances the educational environment. No specific number of seats is reserved for any racial group; instead, race is one piece of information that helps paint a complete picture of the applicant and their potential contribution to the campus community.

  This example demonstrates the permissible use of race as outlined in Bakke. The college does not use a quota but rather considers race as one of many factors in a broad, individualized assessment to achieve a diverse student body. This approach avoids excluding applicants based solely on race while still allowing the institution to pursue diversity.

• Example 3 (Impermissible Dual Track System): Suppose a public university's law school establishes two separate admissions tracks: a "general track" for all applicants and a "special track" exclusively for minority applicants. While both tracks have minimum qualifications, the special track has different, potentially lower, average admissions criteria, and applicants in the general track cannot be considered for the special track seats. If a non-minority applicant with strong qualifications is rejected while a less qualified minority applicant is admitted through the special track, this system would likely be challenged.

  This scenario illustrates the Bakke ruling because the law school's dual-track system effectively creates a separate, preferential admissions process based on race, similar to a quota. It prevents applicants from competing equally for all available spots, thereby violating the principle that race cannot be the definitive factor that excludes an otherwise qualified applicant from consideration.