Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: Exploring Race and the Constitution through Majority and Dissenting Opinions

Title: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: Exploring Race and the Constitution through Majority and Dissenting Opinions Introduction: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke is a landmark Supreme Court case that delves into the intersection of race and the Constitution. This essay will examine both the Majority and Dissenting Opinions in this case, highlighting how each opinion contributes to our understanding of the Constitution. By analyzing the arguments put forth by the justices, we can gain insights into the complexities surrounding affirmative action and its constitutionality. Background: In 1973, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. The school had reserved 16 out of 100 seats for minority applicants as part of an affirmative action program. Bakke argued that this policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case reached the Supreme Court, which delivered its decision on June 28, 1978. The Majority Opinion: In a fragmented decision, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. delivered the controlling opinion of the Court. He concluded that while the use of racial quotas was unconstitutional, diversity could be considered as a compelling state interest in university admissions. The opinion established that race could be one of many factors considered in admissions decisions but could not be the sole determining factor. The Majority Opinion's Contribution to Understanding the Constitution: Affirmative Action and Diversity: The Majority Opinion recognized that diversity could be a legitimate goal in higher education. It acknowledged the importance of a diverse student body in fostering educational benefits such as cross-cultural understanding and preparing students for a diverse society. The opinion highlighted that considering race as one factor among many could be constitutionally permissible. Strict Scrutiny and Equal Protection: The Majority Opinion reaffirmed that racial classifications by government entities are subject to strict scrutiny. It emphasized that any use of race in admissions must meet a high standard of review, requiring a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored means to achieve that interest. The opinion reinforced the principle that government actions should treat individuals equally under the law without unfairly burdening or benefiting any racial group. The Dissenting Opinion: Justice Thurgood Marshall, joined by Justices Brennan, White, and Blackmun, penned a dissenting opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The dissent argued that racial classifications used in university admissions were necessary to address historical and ongoing societal discrimination faced by minority groups. The Dissenting Opinion's Contribution to Understanding the Constitution: Historical Context and Remedying Past Discrimination: The Dissenting Opinion emphasized the historical context of systemic discrimination against minority groups in education. It contended that considering race was necessary to address past injustices and promote equal opportunities for underrepresented communities. The opinion underscored that remedying past discrimination was a compelling state interest that justified affirmative action. Continuing Role of Race: The Dissenting Opinion challenged the idea that race-conscious policies would become unnecessary in the future. It argued that race would continue to be an important factor in achieving equal opportunity and breaking down racial barriers. The opinion recognized the ongoing existence of racial disparities and advocated for continued efforts to address them. Conclusion: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke provides valuable insights into the complex issue of affirmative action and its constitutional implications. The Majority Opinion recognized diversity as a compelling state interest while limiting the use of racial quotas. It emphasized strict scrutiny and equal protection under the law. On the other hand, the Dissenting Opinion highlighted historical context, remedying past discrimination, and the continuing role of race in achieving equality. Through these opinions, we gain a deeper understanding of how race intersects with the Constitution and the ongoing debates surrounding affirmative action.

Sample Answer