8/7/2019 Case Brief - Bakke

1/2

Linda M. BarksdaleSchool Law

September 9, 2010

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

438 U.S. 265 (1978)Facts As in the case ofRegents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265

(1978), The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to TheSupreme Court of California to decide the issues. Allan Bakke, a white male,

applied to the University of California, Davis School of Medicine in 1973 and1974, but was rejected in both years even though special applicants were

admitted with significantly lower academic scores than Bakke. Bakkesqualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of the minority

students admitted in the two years his applications were rejected. Theseapplicants were admitted under provisions either for members of a minority

group (such as Blacks or Hispanics), or as economically and/or educationallydisadvantaged. Many disadvantaged Caucasians had applied under this second

provision, but none had been successfully admitted. The school reserved sixteenplaces in each entering class of one hundred for qualified minorities, as part of

the Universitys Affirmative Action Program in an effort to redress long standing,unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. In 1974, the special

admissions committee of the school explicitly stated that they would consideronly candidates who were explicitly designated minority groups. After his second

rejection, Bakke filed an action in state court for mandatory, injunctive, anddeclaratory relief to compel his admission to Davis, alleging that the special

admissions program operated to exclude him on the basis of his race in violationof the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment. The University of

California counter-claimed for a declaration that its special admissions programwas lawful.

Issues Whether, petitioner, the University of California Davis Medical Schools special

admissions program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenthamendment and 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C.S.2000d, and whether respondent, Bakke, was entitled to an injunctionordering his admission.

Rule Strict scrutiny is the standard of judicial review in a challenged policy in which

the Court presumes the policy to be invalid unless it can be demonstrated by acompelling interest to justify the policy. The standard of judicial review is based

on the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment which states ... Nostate shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any personof life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Grutter v.

Bollinger,539U.S. 306; 123 S. Ct. 2325; 156 L. Ed. 2d 304 (2003) .

8/7/2019 Case Brief - Bakke

2/2

Application The University ofCalifornia Davis Medical Schools implementation of a racial

quota system in its special admission program denied Bakke equal protection ofthe law. Bakke established that the University had discriminated against him on

the basis of race and he is entitled to admission to the university.

Conclusion The Court concluded that race can be used as a factor when it is for the purpose ofremedying substantial chronic under representation of certain minorities in the

medical profession. The special admissions program of the University ofCalifornia Davis Medical School violated Title VI because it excluded from

consideration an applicant on the basis of race. The Court stated that race cannotbe the basis for excluding a candidate but it may be one of several factors in

admissions considerations in higher education. The University of CaliforniaDavis Medical School was ordered to admit Bakke into its program. In its ruling,

The Court softened white opposition to the goal of equality by finding for Bakkewhile at the same time continued its goal for racial minorities through affirmative

action.