Allan Bakke Application To Medical Schools

Allan Bakke was a thirty three year old white male who wanted to attend medical school. Bakke was a former officer in the United States Marine Corps and worked as an engineer for NASA. He attended the University of Minnesota under the Naval ROTC program and graduated with a 3.51 GPA, upon graduation Bakke joined the Marine Corps serving four years as part of the requirements of the ROTC program. During Bakke’s time in the Marine Corps he developed an interest in medical science leading him to attempt to gain admittance into a medical school. In 1972 Bakke applied to the University of Southern California and Northwestern University. Both schools denied Bakke admittance due to his age, many medical schools openly practiced age discrimination

in this time period. A year later, in 1974, Bakke applied to the University of California Medical School at Davis.

Bakke’s first application to the University of California was submitted late due to a medical condition his mother had been suffering from at the time, the tardiness of the application was most likely a key factor in his rejection. Furthermore Bakke applied again in 1974, this time ensuring the application was submitted in a timely manner. To his dismay the second application was also rejected. Following his second rejection Bakke learned that many minority students with substantially lower qualifications had been admitted to the university under the special admission program. The program was designed as the schools affirmative action program to ensure racial discrimination did not take place during the admission process and to assist in diversifying the student population. The program reserved sixteen out of one hundred seats and was only available to minority students. The program also allowed for minority students to be admitted under lower standards than the regular

program.
In 1974, after his second rejection Bakke took his case to the Superior Court of California. During the case Bakke hoped to gain an order from the court granting him admission to the school on the grounds that the special admission program for minorities was unconstitutional on the grounds of racial discrimination. The court ruled that the program was unconstitutional on the grounds that the program showed unfair advantage to a specific race or ethnic group, however they did not order for Bakke’s admittance into the university. Both parties appealed after the final judgment was entered in early 1975. Due to the importance of the issues involved in the case the Supreme Court of California ordered that the appeal be transferred to it, bypassing the usual appeal process. The Supreme Court of California heard the case in 1976. After hearing arguments from both sides the court upheld the decision of the lower court 6-1. The court struck down the universities use of the special admissions program and ordered the university to provide evidence that Bakke would not have been accepted under a system that did not use race as a factor for admittance, therefore a system without the special admission program. The university was unable to provide sufficient evidence that Bakke would have been rejected without the use of the special admission program leading the court to amend the lower courts decision and order Bakke’s admittance.
After the decision in the Supreme Court of California the university took the case to the United States Supreme Court.

In late 1976, the university requested a stay be put on the order pending a petition for review. Justice William Rehnquist of the Supreme Court granted the stay. The court considered the case three times in 1977 needing four votes to grant review, it received the four votes needed each time but at the request of one of the justices the case was pushed for reconsideration. The court granted review after the third vote and was to be argued later on in the

year.
Archibald Cox, former U.S. Solicitor General and Watergate special prosecutor led the arguments for the university. Cox argued that the outcome of the case would determine whether or not minorities would have equal access to higher education for generations to come. Cox also argued that Bakke was not granted acceptance due to his qualifications, not his race. Reynold Colvin, who was arguing for Bakke, claimed that Bakke’s Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated by the special admission program. After oral arguments took place the justices requested for further briefing to be submitted relating the case to Title VI. The university filed a supplemental brief arguing that Title VI was a version of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that did not allow for private plaintiffs to pursue a claim under it. Colvin’s brief argued that Bakke had implied cause of action to make a claim under Title VI, but did not want the university to suffer the repercussions of a discriminatory institution as listed in Title VI which included loss of federal funding, Bakke just wanted to be admitted.
The court announced its decision on June 28, 1978. Justices of the court submitted six opinions none of which had majority support of the court. Justice Lewis F. Powell delivered the judgment of the court. The judgment was delivered in a plurality opinion as it was not supported by the majority, but received more support than any other opinion in the case. Justices Burger, Stevens, Rehnquist and Stewart stood with Powell to strike down the special admission program and grant admission to Bakke. The remaining justices, White, Marshall, Brennan and Blackmun did not supported that portion of the opinion, but joined Powell in finding affirmative action permissible under certain circumstances. The justices also joined with Powell to reverse the judgment of the California Supreme Court forbidding the university to use race as a factor during the admission process.
Powell’s opinion found that it was unnecessary to decide if Bakke had the right to raise a case under Title VI or not. He continued to discuss Title VI declaring that it only bars racial classifications forbidden by the Constitution. As for the program, assuming that there are eighty-four seats open to white students, whereas minorities were able to compete for any of the one hundred open seats proved that the program was a racial qualification rather than a goal as the university intended it to be. After tracing the history of the Equal Protection Clause, Powell concluded that it protected all, not just minorities. Powell later mentioned in his opinion that the government could only treat members of different races differently if it served a compelling interest to the government. He rejected the university’s argument that government had a compelling interest in increasing the number of minority doctors. A section of Powell’s opinion that received majority support stated that setting aside a specific number of seats reserved for minorities did discriminate against Bakke, however a less restrictive program that made race one of many factors would help to diversify the student body while not discriminating against any specific race. Powell declared that because the university was unable to prove that Bakke would not have been admitted had there been no special admission program, the California Supreme Court decision to admit Bakke would stand, however the decision by the court to completely remove race as a factor in the admission process was overruled.
In my personal opinion I feel that reverse discrimination is a large and constantly increasing issue in the United States. This case, however, has not only brought light to the situation, but has proven to our country that reverse discrimination will not be tolerated. Over catering to a previously discriminated against minority will not reverse what has been done, it will only create a new issue. Quotas that are set to ensure that a specific number of a certain race or group are accepted into an institution remove any aspect of equal opportunity. In order to ensure equal opportunity for everyone we need to remove race, sex, religion and other similar factors from selection processes, instead we should focus entirely on how qualified and dedicated a candidate is. It is unfair to someone who has worked hard to obtain something in life and is denied due to a school or company needing one more man, woman, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, or any other unlisted minority. If we continue to use these discriminatory systems we very well could become a nation of discouraged citizens.