When Both Sides Make a Compelling Argument: Bakke v California

 The year was 1977 and a white student named Bakke was applying to medical school in California. He was in his thirties, had excellent test scores, and had prior military service to boost his resume. The program only had 100 seats available but Bakke was confident in his abilities. Unfortunately, confidence was not enough, and Bakke was turned down from multiple grad schools. Being an intelligent fellow, Bakke decided to investigate the reason for his plight and discovered that 16% percent of the 100 seats were reserved for "minorities. " On the surface, this did not bother him, but after discovering that his scores exceeded every applicant accepted due to minority status he became infuriated. Bakke pursued a legal battle until the case of Bakke v California landed in the lap of the Supreme Court. 

Standing before the court, Bakke argued that he was discriminated against due to his race and his age. As a veteran, his twenties were spent serving the military, which is why he did not apply at a younger age. Furthermore, Bakke argued that a hard quota system based on race was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. By reserving a set number of seats for black students, whites and other races were not receiving equal protection under the law. Bakke also argued that he never committed the sin of racism so he should not be punished for it, after all, his test scores and background were stronger than the other applicants. The final and strongest argument in Bakke's favor was that the 16% value, or any value, is "arbitrary and capricious." If 16% why not 30%, why not 100%? Bakke made excellent points, but the defendants of the university made a compelling case as well. 

The forefront argument for the defense was that such a program posed a "compelling interest" for not only the university but for the nation. With many black applicants being the first in their families to enter college, the issue was seen as a form of equity. The only way to lift blacks out of poverty would be to first give them access to higher education, even if it was unwarranted at first. The race of applicants was used as a proxy or substitute for poverty by the defense. This was a connection that the court agreed with due to statistics. However, this argument today stands on thinner ice. 

With both sides making strong arguments, the court split the baby and ruled in favor of both sides. Although, Bakke technically won the case because the defense was only able to keep part of their current policies. Specifically, schools were not allowed to institute hard quotas but they were allowed to use race and socio-economic status as one of many factors in the admissions process. This is the current doctrine used by universities today, and as you can imagine, division over the decision continues. At least Bakke got his way, he entered the school and graduated a few years later. He then spent the rest of his career working for the Mayo Clinic. 

The sources for this entire blog post came from an in-class mock trial/ discussion.