Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): Affirmative Action and Quotas

Case at a Glance

Who Was Allan Bakke?

Allan Paul Bakke was born in 1940 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and grew up in modest circumstances. He served in the US Marines and graduated from the University of Minnesota with a degree in mechanical engineering. He worked for NASA as an engineer and developed a strong interest in medicine through his volunteer work. In his early thirties, he applied to a dozen medical schools, including UC Davis, but was rejected, partly due to his age and partly because of the highly competitive admissions environment.

He applied to UC Davis Medical School twice: once in 1973 and again in 1974. Both times he was rejected through the school's regular admissions programme. He was in his thirties by his second application — older than most applicants, which worked against him under the regular programme's criteria. He observed that some minority applicants with lower grades and test scores than his were admitted through UC Davis's special admissions programme. He believed the dual system had discriminated against him because of his race. He filed suit.

UC Davis Medical School's Dual Admissions System

UC Davis School of Medicine admitted 100 students per year to its entering class. The school ran 2 parallel admissions programmes.

Regular programme: Open to all applicants. Used standard criteria including undergraduate GPA, MCAT scores, recommendations, and interviews. Applicants needed a minimum 2.5 GPA to be considered.

Special admissions programme: Reserved 16 of the 100 seats exclusively for applicants who self-identified as members of disadvantaged economic or racial minority groups. The special programme committee evaluated these applicants separately and could admit them even if their numerical credentials were lower than those of rejected regular applicants.

The special programme had been designed to increase the number of doctors from historically underrepresented minority groups — groups the school believed were underserved by existing medical education and healthcare. In the years Bakke applied, no special admissions candidate was admitted with a predicted average below 2.88, while the regular programme's average for the entering class was much higher. Bakke's overall score under the regular programme's evaluation system was 468 out of 500. The highest score of a special admissions candidate admitted in those years was 388.

The Proceedings Below

Bakke filed suit in the Superior Court of California, arguing both that the special admissions programme violated his rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race in programmes receiving federal financial assistance, and that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The California Superior Court ruled in Bakke's favour and ordered the university to admit him. The California Supreme Court agreed, striking down the special admissions programme and ordering Bakke admitted. However, the California Supreme Court also ruled that UC Davis could not take race into account in any future admissions decisions, a sweeping prohibition that went beyond what Bakke had sought. The university asked the US Supreme Court to review the case; Bakke cross-appealed asking the Court to affirm the no-race prohibition.

The Supreme Court's Fractured Decision

The Bakke decision was one of the most internally fragmented Supreme Court rulings of the twentieth century. No single majority opinion commanded the assent of 5 justices. Instead, Justice Powell wrote a controlling solo opinion that produced 2 different 5-4 coalitions for its 2 key holdings.

Holding 1: Quotas Are Unconstitutional (Powell + Stevens Group)

Justice Powell joined the 4 justices of the Stevens group (Burger, Stewart, Rehnquist, and Stevens) to form a 5-justice majority for the proposition that UC Davis's special admissions programme was unconstitutional.

Powell applied strict scrutiny to the racial classification because the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection applies to any person, not just historically disadvantaged minorities. Strict scrutiny requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest and to use means narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The Stevens group would have resolved the case on Title VI statutory grounds without reaching the constitutional question, but the effect was the same: the quota system had to go. Powell held that a rigid 16-seat quota that excluded white applicants entirely from competing for those seats was not narrowly tailored even if diversity was a compelling interest. Bakke was ordered admitted to UC Davis Medical School.

Holding 2: Race May Be a Factor in Holistic Admissions (Powell + Brennan Group)

Powell joined the 4 justices of the Brennan group (Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun) — who would have upheld the special admissions programme entirely — for a second 5-justice majority on the question of whether UC Davis could ever consider race in admissions. They agreed it could.

Powell articulated what would become the most influential element of the Bakke decision: the diversity rationale. Powell argued that the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body — exposure to different perspectives, enriched intellectual discourse, better preparation for a diverse professional world — constitute a compelling state interest sufficient to justify some degree of race-consciousness in admissions. He endorsed the approach used by Harvard College's admissions programme, which considered race as one positive factor in a genuinely individualised, holistic review of each applicant, without reserving specific seats for any racial group.

Under the Harvard model, a Black applicant's racial background might give a plus in the admissions calculus, much as athletic ability, geographic diversity, or a distinctive life experience might for other applicants. What was not permissible was a system that gave race so determinative a weight that it essentially pre-allocated seats on racial grounds — which was what UC Davis's separate 16-seat programme did.

The Significance of the Fractured Decision

Because no single opinion commanded a majority, the Bakke decision's legal weight was complex and debated for 25 years. Powell's diversity rationale was technically the view of only 1 justice. The Stevens group would have prohibited all race-consciousness; the Brennan group would have upheld even the quota system. Only Powell found a middle ground.

However, the practical effect of Powell's opinion was enormous. Selective universities across the United States read Bakke as authorising race-conscious admissions of the Harvard holistic variety. They adopted admissions practices designed to comply with the Powell framework — using race as one factor among many in individualised review — while abandoning explicit quotas.

In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), a majority of the Supreme Court explicitly adopted Powell's diversity rationale for the first time, holding in a 5-4 decision by Justice O'Connor that diversity in higher education was a compelling interest and that holistic race-conscious admissions were constitutional. But in 2023, the Supreme Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard overruled Grutter and Gratz v. Bollinger, holding that race-conscious admissions programmes are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Bakke's framework — which shaped higher education admissions for 45 years — has now been superseded.

What Happened to Allan Bakke?

Allan Bakke was admitted to UC Davis Medical School following the Supreme Court's decision in 1978. He graduated in 1982 and went on to practise anaesthesiology. He has been notably private throughout his life, rarely granting interviews and avoiding the public attention the case brought. He worked for many years as an anaesthesiologist in the Rochester, Minnesota area.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Bakke case decide?

The Supreme Court held that UC Davis's special admissions programme, which reserved 16 of 100 seats exclusively for minority applicants, was unconstitutional. Bakke was ordered admitted to medical school. However, the Court also held that race could be considered as 1 factor among many in a holistic admissions process aimed at achieving educational diversity.

Is the Bakke decision still good law?

Partly. The holding that racial quotas are unconstitutional remains good law. The holding that race-conscious holistic admissions can be constitutional was overruled by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023). Race-conscious admissions programmes in universities are now unconstitutional.

What was the Bakke case about?

Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was rejected by UC Davis Medical School while the school reserved 16 seats exclusively for minority applicants with lower credentials. He sued, arguing the system discriminated against him on racial grounds. The Supreme Court agreed the quota was unconstitutional and ordered him admitted, while holding that race-conscious admissions of a holistic kind could be permissible.

Timeline

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke asked whether the Constitution's promise of equal protection requires colour-blindness or permits race-consciousness in service of diversity. For 45 years, the answer was a qualified yes to race-consciousness — until the Supreme Court, in 2023, finally answered with an unqualified no.