Affirmative action has long been a contentious issue in American society, reflecting tensions about race, equality, and constitutional principles. The landmark case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke serves as a pivotal moment in this debate, highlighting the challenges of balancing diversity with constitutional mandates.

Background and Context of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

The backdrop for Regents of the University of California v. Bakke stems from evolving affirmative action policies aimed at addressing racial imbalances in educational institutions. Following the civil rights movement, many universities implemented admissions policies considering race as one factor to foster diversity.

The University of California Medical School at Davis developed a special admissions program to increase minority representation, setting aside 16 out of 100 seats for applicants identified as "economically and/or educationally disadvantaged" from minority groups. The admissions process for these special applicants differed from the general admissions procedure, with a separate committee reviewing their applications.

Allan Bakke, a white male applicant rejected in 1973 and 1974 despite solid scores, challenged the admissions policy legally. He argued that the special admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The case progressed through the California courts, with the state Supreme Court eventually declaring the program unconstitutional and ordering Bakke's admission. The university appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for a landmark decision on the boundaries of affirmative action.

Supreme Court's Decision and Opinions

The Supreme Court's fragmented decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke reflected the complex balance between fostering diversity and adhering to constitutional principles. Justice Lewis Powell's pivotal opinion shaped the discourse around affirmative action in higher education.

Key Points of the Decision:

• Powell ruled that the University of California's use of racial quotas was unconstitutional, violating the Equal Protection Clause.
• He acknowledged that diversity is a compelling interest in higher education.
• Race could be considered as one factor among many in a holistic admissions process.

The Court's ruling revealed a divided bench with six separate opinions:

• Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun agreed that race could be considered to address historical imbalances but dissented on striking down the UC Davis program.
• Justices Stevens, Burger, Stewart, and Rehnquist opposed any racial consideration in admissions.

Ultimately, the Court invalidated the UC Davis special admissions program but upheld the principle that race could play a limited role in the admissions process to achieve diversity. This decision set a standard for implementing affirmative measures within the bounds of equal protection, ensuring no group is unfairly favored or disadvantaged.

Impact on Affirmative Action Policies

The Bakke decision had significant implications for affirmative action policies in higher education. It rejected racial quotas while sanctioning the careful consideration of race as one factor among many in university admissions. This nuanced stance meant that institutions could pursue diversity through flexible, holistic admissions strategies.

Universities across the United States adjusted their policies to align with the Supreme Court's guidance, dismantling explicit quota systems and integrating race as one element in a broader evaluation of an applicant's profile.

Subsequent landmark cases, such as Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), further solidified the influence of Bakke. The Supreme Court endorsed Justice Powell's reasoning, affirming that race-conscious admissions policies designed to achieve diversity in higher education were permissible.¹

However, the acceptance of race-conscious admissions was not without dissent. Some Justices argued against any form of racial preference, advocating for a strict interpretation of colorblindness in line with the Constitution's equal protection guarantees.

The constitutional controversies surrounding affirmative action have continued to evolve, with Bakke and Grutter serving as critical reference points. Recent cases have scrutinized how universities apply the holistic review process in admissions, while some states have enacted bans on affirmative action in public universities.

The Bakke decision established a framework for affirmative action policies that seeks an equilibrium between promoting diversity and maintaining equal protection under the law. This framework continues to shape the landscape of higher education and ongoing discussions about the role of race in admissions.

Conservative Critiques and Perspectives

Conservative critiques of the Bakke decision and broader affirmative action policies argue that such measures clash with core constitutional principles. These critiques center on several key points:

1. Racial victimization: Critics argue that affirmative action promotes a victim mindset among racial minorities, undermining the American ideal of self-reliance and merit-based success.
2. Mismatch theory: This perspective suggests that affirmative action can place students in academic environments where they are less likely to succeed, potentially doing a disservice to those students.
3. Societal implications: Conservatives warn that policies considering race, even with good intentions, may heighten racial awareness and foster division rather than eradicating racial distinctions.
4. Constitutional principles: These critiques are rooted in a vision emphasizing colorblindness and individual merit. Conservatives argue that the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act mandate a colorblind approach to governance.
5. Founding vision: Critics often cite the founding vision of the United States as a constitutional republic where laws apply uniformly to all individuals, arguing that affirmative action policies contravene this vision.

Conservatives maintain that adhering to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, where individual merit triumphs over racial considerations, is the true path to equality. This perspective continues to shape the debate over affirmative action in America, reflecting enduring questions about justice, equality, and the best approach to fostering a more inclusive society.

The Bakke decision underscores a critical point: while striving for diversity is important, it must be done within the framework of equal protection under the law. This case remains a cornerstone in the discourse on affirmative action, illustrating the balance between fostering inclusivity and upholding the foundational principles of our constitutional republic.

1. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).