uc v. bakke

8/2/2019 UC v. Bakke

1/5


2/5

personal views than upon study of the total problem. gave him an 86 =lowest of his 6 ratings which was a total of 549/6000

o Bakke was rejected and in both years, he was not considered by Dr. Lowrey

for the waitlist- In both years, applicants were admitted under the special program with GPA and

MCAT scores, and benchmark scores significantly lower than Bakkes.

- After 1974 rejection: Bakke filed a suit in the Supreme Court of Californiao Sought mandatory, injunctive and declaratory relief compelling his admission

to the Medschool.o Alleged that the special admissions program was based on race in violation og

the Equal Protection Clause under the 14 Amendment- Trial court found that the special program operated a racial quota because minority

applicants were only rated against each other and 16 slots of the 100 were reservedfor them

o Held that the challenged program was violative of the Federal and State

Consti.o Court however refused to order his admission because he failed to prove that

he would have been admitted if not for the special program.- Bakke appealed from the portion denying the admission while UC appealed for

declaring the program unlawfulo California SC accepted the findings of the trial court with respect to the

unlawfulness of the program.

o The strict scrutiny was made to apply court agreed that the goals of

integrating the medical profession and increasing the number of physicianswilling to serve members of minority, the special program was NOT THE LEASTINTRUSIVE MEANS

o It was held that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment required

that no applicant be rejected because of his race and in favor of another whois less qualified, as measures by standards applied w/o regard to race.

o On Bakkes appeal, court ruled that since Bakke has established the that the

University is had discriminated against him on the basis of his race, burden ofproof shifted to the University to demonstrate that he would not have been

admitted even in the absence of the special program. The university conceded that it cannot carry out this burden

o California court amended its opinion to direct the trial court to enter judgment

ordering Bakkes admission to the medschool.Issue: W/N the special admission program is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and

the Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964W/N SC can order Petitioner to admit Bakke into the medschool

Held: Yes and Yes.Ratio:

- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI prevents discrimination by government agenciesthat receive federal funding. If an agency is found violating Title VI, it could lose itsfederal funding.

o This opinion looked into the legislative history of Title VI in order to explain the

Equal Protection Clause (No person in the United States shall, on the groundof race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be deniedthe benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program oractivity receiving Federal financial assistance.)

- Congress was at that time confronted with discrimination against Negro citizens atthe hands of recipients of federal moneys. In addressing the problem, proponents of

the Title VI repeatedly declare that the bill enacted constitutional principles. thereis a constitutional restriction against discrimination in the use of federal funds and

Title VI simply spells out the procedure to be used in enforcing that restriction.

- There was also no definition of discrimination in Title VI proponents simply point tothe Constitution or other existing law for its definition.

- Legislative intent was to proscribe only those racial classifications that would violatethe Equal Protection Clause (EPC).

Application of Strict Scrutiny

- Petitioner University argue that the strict scrutiny test should be applied only tocases where racial classification results to the disadvantage of the discrete and

insular minorities. Court held that this has never been considered as a requisitefor strict judicial scrutiny

o Discreteness and insularity may be relevant only in deciding whether or not to

add new types of classifications to the list of suspect categories or whether aparticular classification survives as examination.


3/5

o Racial and ethnic classifications are subject to stringent examination w/o

regard to these additional characteristics.

- SC held that the special admission program is undeniably a classification based onrace and ethnic background

o The 14th amendment extends to all persons and the rights established are

personal rights. Guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing for an

individual and something else for another (who is of different color/race)- The EPC only became a popular defense for liberty and property after the era of

substantive due process came to a close by this time, it was no longer possible topeg the guarantees of the 14th Amendment to the struggle for equality for oneminority.

o The US has become a nation of minorities, with the majority simply being

composed of various minority groups

- While the framers of the 14th Amendment were aiming to bridge the vast distancebetween members of the Negro race and the white majority, the amendment itselfwas couched in universal terms without reference to color, ethnic origin, or condition

of prior servitude. a broader principle than would have been necessary to simplymeet the particular and immediate plight of the newly freed Negro people.

o The legislation was broadened specifically in 1870 when the phrase was

changed to all citizens rather than citizens only.o Hence, while many of the court decision upholding EPC were for the benefit of

Negros being discriminated against by the white majority, the EPC need notbe characterized solely based on these results

- The Petitioner is asking the court to apply a new standard to EPC: that a classificationshall only be suspect if its effects are no longer benign.

o This line of thinking is asking the court to go back in time and revert to the

two-group classification of the society, where there is clearly a majority whiteand a minority white.

o Courts would be asked to evaluate the extent of the prejudice and consequent

harm suffered by various minority groups. the sociological and politicalanalysis required for such evaluation is not within the courts competence.

- Furthermore, there is also serious problems of justice connected with the idea ofgiving preference in applying the strict scrutiny test:

o It may not always be clear that so-called preference is in fact benign courts

may be asked to validate burdens imposed upon individual members if a

particular group in order to advance the groups general interest noting inthe consti. supports the notion that individuals may be asked to sufferotherwise impermissible burdens in order to enhance the societal standing oftheir ethnic groups.

o Preferential programs may also reinforce stereotype holding that certain

groups are unable to achieve success w/o the special protection based on afactor having no relationship with individual worth.

o There is a measure of inequity in forcing innocent persons in the respondent

Bakkes position to bear the burdens of redressing grievances not of their

making.- Disparate constitutional tolerance of such classifications may sell serve to exacerbateracial and ethnic antagonism rather than alleviate them.

Precedent to upholding preferential programs:

- Petitioners direct the courts attention to previous decisions allegedly approvingpreferential classifications without applying the most exacting scrutiny court findthis untenable

o School desegregation cases racial classification here were designed as

remedies for the vindication of constitutional entitlement. Moreover, the scopeof the remedies were not permitted to exceed the extent of the violations

o Employment discrimination court had approved the retroactive award of

seniority to a class of Negro truckdrivers who had been victims ofdiscrimination, not just by the socirty at large but by the respondent of the

case; while this decision impose burdens on other employees, it was heldnecessary to make the victims whole for injuries suffered on account of

unlawful employment discrimination. preference here is used as remedy forconstitutional or statutory violations resulting in identified race-based injuriesto individuals held entitled to preference.

o Court has never approved preferential classifications in the absence of proved

constitutional or statutory violations- Petitioners also argue that the gender-based classifications are not subjected to this

level of scrutiny


4/5

o Court said that gender-based distinctions are less likely to create the

analytical and practical problems present in preferential programs premisedon race or ethnicity. The incidence of burdens imposed by preferentialclassifications based on gender is clear unlike race-based classification whichpresents far more complex and intractable problems.

- Petitioner also point out the Lau v. Nichols case, where the court allegedly upheld a

classification based on race exacting inquiry ordinarily accorded to suspectclassification. In the said case, the court held that the failure of the San Franciscoschool system to provide remedial English instruction for some 1,800 students oforiental ancestry who spoke no English amounted to a violation of Title VI. The courthere found that the students were denied a meaningful opportunity to participate inthe educational program and thus remanded the case so that a remedial order maybe issued.

o In upholding the preference, the court is in fact saying that refusal to provide

remedial English is tantamount to depriving the students of meaningfullearning. The preference did not result to a denial of relevant benefit(meaningful opportunity to participate in educational program) to anyoneelse.

- The same remedial purpose is not present in the special admissions program the

preferential slots for the 16 students has foreclosed from competition 16 individualswho are not members of the minority when a classification denies an individualopportunities or benefits enjoyed by others solely because of their race or ethnicitymust be regarded as suspect.

Means and Purpose Test:- The programs purpose: (1) reduce historical deficit of traditionally disfavoured

minorities in medical schools and in the medical profession; (2) countering the effectsof societal discrimination; (3) increasing numbers of individuals in areas currentlyunderserved; and (4) obtaining the educational benefits that flow from an ethnicallydiverse student body.

- The state has a legitimate and substantial interest in ameliorating or eliminatingwhere feasible the effects of identified discrimination.

o Governmental interest in preferring members of the injured groups at the

expense of others is substantial since the legal rights of the victims must bevindicated. the extent of the injury and consequent remedy will have been

judicially, legislatively or administratively defined. otherwise, governmenthas no greater interest in helping one individual than in refraining fromharming another.

o The Petitioner is a school and thus not in any position to make the legislative

formulation of policy or the adjudication of particular claims of illegality thatcan support/justify a preferential program.

- As for improving the delivery of health services to underserved areas: the Universityadmits that it cannot assure that the minority doctors who entered under theprogram will all practice in a disadvantaged community. It was not shown that thepreferential program will likely have a significant effect on the problem.

- As for attainment of a diverse student body: It is a constitutionally permissible goal

for academic institutions in line with academic freedom, i.e. selection of its studentbody. It was believed that the atmosphere of speculation, experiment and creation

essential to higher learning is promoted by a diverse student body. in arguing this,the university is invoking its rights under the 1st Amendment.

o Physicians serve a heterogeneous population and the diversity may brings to

the medschool experiences and outlooks that enrich training to better equipthe students when they service humanity.

o But while the universities can indeed exercise their discretion in selection, it

must not disregard constitutionally protected individual rights.o Question remains whether indeed this interest of the school creates the

necessity for racially-based preferential program.- The state interest in diversity is not represented by the simplistic goal of ethnic

diversity. It is only one aspect of it and it encompasses a broader array of

qualifications and characteristics.- There have also been other admissions program that takes into account ones race or

ethnicity but only as a plus and not as a controlling factor or something that wouldinsulate an individual from comparison with all other candidates (the Harvardadmissions program example).

o This kind of program looks into the many qualities that are presented by

candidates and the weight that the admissions committee attribute them


5/5

depends on the year to year circumstances of the student body and theapplicants of the incoming class.

o There is therefore no set number of slots to be reserved for a certain group.

o This is not a more sophisticated way of introducing race-based standards in

the admissions. The difference of this type of preferential admission is thatit is not facially discriminatory like the UCs special admissions program.

Decision:- When a State's distribution of benefits or imposition of burdens hinges on ancestryor the color of a person's skin, that individual is entitled to a demonstration that thechallenged classification is necessary to promote a substantial state interest.Petitioner has failed to carry this burden. For this reason, that portion of theCalifornia court's judgment holding petitioner's special admissions program invalidunder the Fourteenth Amendment must be affirmed.

- In enjoining petitioner from ever considering the race of any applicant, however, thecourts below failed to recognize that the State has a substantial interestthat legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions programinvolving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin. For thisreason, so much of the California court's judgment as enjoins petitioner from anyconsideration of the race of any applicant must be reversed.

- The Petitioner admitted that it cannot prove that if the special program was not inplace, Bakke would not be admitted. Hence, the order for his admission is sustained.

Stevens, J. Concurring and dissenting opinion

- The court should affirm the judgment of the trial court regardless of the courtsopinion about the legality of the special admissions program. This is because the suitis not a class action but a controversy between two specific litigants. The decisionwas in fact pertaining only to whether Bakke can have the court order the universityto admit him into the Medschool. The suit was therefore clearly limited to theUniversitys consideration of Bakkes application. Furthermore, the CaliforniaSupreme Court directed the trial court to order Bakkes admission and thus there isno outstanding injunction forbidding any consideration of racial criteria in processing

application. question on whether race can ever be used as a factor in an

admissions decision is not an issue in this case and the SCs discussion of this issue isinappropriate.

- There is also no need to decide on the congruence (or lack thereof) of Title VI withthe Constitution. The meaning of Title VI is clear: race cannot be the basis ofexcluding anyone from participation in a federally funded program. Nothing is thelegislative history justifies the conclusion that the broad language of the statute

should not be given its natural meaning there is nothing in the debates or priorinterpretation that suggests that its place in the Civil Rights Act is simply that of aconstitutional appendage. It has an independent force with language and emphasis inaddition to that found in the Constitution.

- The Universitys belated claim that the Title VI cannot be enforced by a privatelitigant is unpersuasive. the Courts have previously concluded or assumed that aprivate action may be maintained under Title VI and this is also supported by the

legislative history of Title VI itself.

uc v. bakke

Documents