Bakke v. Regents of the University of California
Year:
1978
Result: 5-4, Favor Bakke
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 14th Amendment (“equal protection”)
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil rights
Significance/precedent: The split vote of the Supreme Court managed to lessen white opposition of equal rights by favoring Bakke and ruling that admissions based on race and racial quotas were unconstitutional, but also stated that race was an acceptable factor in admitting students, improving affirmative action and the position of racial minorities.
Quote from majority opinion: “…there are serious problems of justice connected with the idea of preference itself… Nothing in the Constitution supports the notion that individuals may be asked to suffer otherwise impermissible burdens in order to enhance the societal standing of their ethnic groups…preferential programs may only reinforce common stereotypes holding that certain groups are unable to achieve success without special protection based on a factor having no relationship to individual worth.”
Summary of dissent: The dissenting judges believed that looking at race as a criteria for admission was constitutionally acceptable to try to fix the injustices placed on minorities by racial prejudice, even if that meant giving extra points for race on admissions tests or setting up a racial quota.
6-word summary: Racial quotas: impermissible; upheld affirmative action
Result: 5-4, Favor Bakke
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 14th Amendment (“equal protection”)
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil rights
Significance/precedent: The split vote of the Supreme Court managed to lessen white opposition of equal rights by favoring Bakke and ruling that admissions based on race and racial quotas were unconstitutional, but also stated that race was an acceptable factor in admitting students, improving affirmative action and the position of racial minorities.
Quote from majority opinion: “…there are serious problems of justice connected with the idea of preference itself… Nothing in the Constitution supports the notion that individuals may be asked to suffer otherwise impermissible burdens in order to enhance the societal standing of their ethnic groups…preferential programs may only reinforce common stereotypes holding that certain groups are unable to achieve success without special protection based on a factor having no relationship to individual worth.”
Summary of dissent: The dissenting judges believed that looking at race as a criteria for admission was constitutionally acceptable to try to fix the injustices placed on minorities by racial prejudice, even if that meant giving extra points for race on admissions tests or setting up a racial quota.
6-word summary: Racial quotas: impermissible; upheld affirmative action