Introduction
Almost half a century ago, in 1978, Allan Bakke initiated a battle (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) over an issue that had already, and continues to, influence decisions by the United States Supreme Court regarding selection processes, such as university admissions. Minorities have always been fragile to discrimination and some entities strive to improve their position in society. Is it ethically acceptable for universities and other prominent institutions to prioritize assisting minorities in accessing their programs, where selection processes primarily emphasize cognitive skills and abilities, clearly at the expense of the majority and therefore violating the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)? The U.S. Supreme Court have recently concerned with the similar case, SFFA v. Harvard where they first considered that issue in Bakke case.
Allan Bakke, a white applicant to the University of California Medical School at Davis became a somewhat central figure in affirmative action processes in the 1970’s. Bakke Applied to the medical school twice but was denied admission both times even though he possessed strong qualifications. Bakke later discovered that the university was reserving 16 out of 100 seats for minority applicants as a part of the university’s affirmative action program.
Case analysis
The Bakke Case made its way to the United States Supreme Court, where the justices grappled with the complexities of affirmative action. In a landmark decision in 1978, the Court issued a fragmented ruling with multiple opinions. However, it was the opinion authored by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. that formed the majority decision.
Justice Powell’s opinion in the Bakke case was pivotal. He acknowledged the compelling interest in diversity in higher education, recognizing that a diverse student body enriches the educational experience for all. However, he also articulated the limitations of affirmative action, particularly the use of strict racial quotas, which he deemed unconstitutional.
In his nuanced opinion, Justice Powell crafted a delicate balance, asserting that race could be considered as one of several factors in university admissions but striking down the use of rigid quotas. This approach affirmed the importance of diversity while safeguarding the principles of equal protection under the law.
As said, The Supreme Court affirmed in the Bakke case that affirmative action could be a legal factor in university admission policies, but strict racial quotas were unconstitutional. This decision paved the way for subsequent cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger, where the Court affirmed the importance of diversity in higher education.
Handling of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke by the litigants in SFFA v. Harvard
The Bakke case paved the way for subsequent affirmative action cases that further shaped the legal landscape. One such case is the landmark Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), where the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy, reaffirming the importance of diversity in higher education. Similarly, Fisher v. University of Texas (2013, 2016) challenged the race-conscious admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin, highlighting ongoing debates over the constitutionality and efficacy of affirmative action.
In the Harvard case, the respondents argued that its holistic admissions process, which considers a wide range of factors beyond just academic achievement, including personal qualities, extracurricular activities, and socio-economic background, aligns with the Supreme Court’s recognition in Bakke that diversity is a compelling interest in higher education. The university emphasized that race is just one factor among many in its admissions decisions and that its use of race is narrowly tailored to achieve the educational benefits of diversity, as outlined in the Bakke decision.
While the respondents did not explicitly rely solely on the Bakke case, it did draw upon the broader legal principles established in Bakke and subsequent affirmative action cases to justify its admissions policies and defend against the allegations of discrimination.
Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) did not explicitly invoke the Allan Bakke case in their legal arguments against Harvard University in the Harvard case. Instead, SFFA primarily focused on presenting evidence and arguments alleging that Harvard’s admissions policies discriminated against Asian-American applicants.
While SFFA did not directly reference the Bakke case, the broader legal principles established in Bakke regarding affirmative action and the consideration of race in university admissions likely informed the broader legal context within which the Harvard case was argued. However, SFFA’s specific arguments in the Harvard case primarily revolved around the statistical evidence and allegations of discriminatory practices, rather than invoking specific legal precedents like the Bakke case.
Conclusion
The Bakke case stands as a testament to the complexities of balancing competing interests of equality and diversity in education. While it did not provide definitive answers, it sparked important conversations and shaped the trajectory of affirmative action jurisprudence in the U.S. Understanding the nuances of the Bakke case is essential for grappling with the ongoing pursuit of equity and inclusion in higher education and beyond.
Team L. M. W. F. (Harvard, Case Genetics)