Affirmative Action in Higher Education: UC Davis v. Bakke
According to Justice Powell in his opinion to UCDMS v. Bakke, distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their nature odious. All legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect, but this is not to say that all restrictions based on race are inherently unconstitutional, but are subject to **strict scrutiny**.
The court held in order to justify the use of a “suspect” classification, a state must show that its purpose or interest is both constitutionally permissible and substantive. And the use of such a classification should show a compelling interest to the accomplishment of its purpose or the safeguarding of its interest. The special admissions program offered four rationales for the use of race:
- Increasing the number of traditionally disfavored minorities in the medical profession
- Countering the effects of societal discrimination
- Increasing the number of physicians who will practice in underserved communities
- Creating an ethnically diverse student body
Powell rejected the rationale of increasing the number of disfavored minorities because preferring members of a group for no other reason than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake, and the Constitution forbids it. Second, Powell rejected Davis’ assertion that the use of race in its special admissions program is necessary to counter societal discrimination because helping groups Davis perceives as victims of discrimination does not justify a classification that imposes disadvantages upon persons who bear no responsibility for whatever harm the beneficiaries of the special admissions program are thought to have suffered. Additionally, Davis asserted that the use of race in its special admission program will increase the number of minorities who will practice in underserved communities. Powell rejected this argument, stating while health care delivery is a problem, there is no evidence that minority graduates admitted through the program will practice in those communities. Lastly, Powell accepted the use of race to achieve an ethnically diverse student body is a compelling reason, but stated that race or ethnicity should only be one of numerous other factors to accomplish such a goal. Powell added it would be necessary to determine whether the program’s racial classification is necessary to promote that interest. Powell answered this by citing the admissions model of Harvard Law School.
The Harvard Model as a Constitutional Example
In the Harvard model, race or ethnicity is one of many contributing factors to whether an applicant is accepted. The Harvard program treats all applicants as individuals rather than awarding benefits because they are members of any particular racial group. There is no minimum or maximum number of students accepted from any one group. Under the Harvard model, an applicant may receive a “plus” because of their race, but this is not the decisive factor when considering an applicant. Powell cited the Harvard model as relevant because the model shows that a program that is rigidly and adequately structured to incorporate the use of race as a “plus” and not a decisive benefit shows a compelling state interest in achieving the goal of a diverse student body.