Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
![handle is hein.journals/arklr32 and id is 515 raw text is: COMMENTARY
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Robert E. Knowlton*
INTRODUCTION
Bakke, a white male, was denied admission to the University of Cali-
fornia Medical School at Davis.1 The California Board of Regents had
established a dual admission procedure in which sixteen of one hundred
admissions were reserved for minority candidates. In the years in which
Bakke applied for admission, several minority candidates were admitted
with qualifying scores lower than Bakke's.2
The Superior Court of California held these admission procedures
violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, and
enjoined further consideration of race as a factor for future admissions.
The court did not order that Bakke be admitted, because it believed
Bakke had not sustained his burden of showing he would have been ad-
mitted but for the constitutional violation.
The California Supreme Court affirmed this finding of unconstitu-
tionality.3 It held that the classification was subject to strict scrutiny by
the court because of its racial basis.4 Applying strict scrutiny, the Califor-
nia Supreme Court found the legitimate social goals served by the minor-
ity admission program could be achieved through a method which had
less impact upon rights of others such as Bakke.5 The California Supreme
* Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, Rutgers; The State University of New
Jersey; currently Professor of Law, University of Arkansas School of Law, Fayetteville.
1. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 98 S. Ct. 2733 (1978) [hereinafter Bakke].
2. The admission procedures are explained in Part I of Justice Powell's opinion.
Bakke, 98 S. Ct. at 2739-43. For the history of the Bakke case, see id at 2743-44.
3. Bakke v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 18 Cal. 3d 34, 132 Cal. Rptr. 680, 553
P.2d 1152 (1976).
4. Justice Mosk, speaking for the majority, said:
We cannot agree with the proposition that deprivation based upon race is subject
to a less demanding standard of review under the Fourteenth Amendment if the
race discriminated against is the majority rather than a minority.
Bakke v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 18 Cal. 3d 34, 132 Cal. Rptr. 680, 691, 553 P.2d
1152, 1163 (1976).
5. Justice Mosk stated:
We may assume arguendo that the remaining objectives which the University seeks
to achieve by the special admission program meet the exacting standards required
to uphold the validity of a racial classification insofar as they establish a compel-](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/arklr32&div=34&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most