Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke | |
---|---|
Holding | |
Bakke was ordered admitted to UC Davis Medical School, and the school's practice of reserving 16 seats for minority students was struck down. Judgment of the Supreme Court of California reversed insofar as it forbade the university from taking race into account in admissions. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Powell (Parts I and V–C), joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun |
Plurality | Powell (Part III–A), joined by White |
Concurrence | Powell (Parts II, III–B, III–C, IV, V–A, V–B, and VI) |
Concur/dissent | Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun |
Concur/dissent | White |
Concur/dissent | Marshall |
Concur/dissent | Blackmun |
Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Burger, Stewart, Rehnquist |
Laws applied | |
Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (2023) |
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), was a
Although the Supreme Court had outlawed
Allan P. Bakke (
The ruling on the case was highly fractured. The nine justices issued a total of six opinions. The judgment of the court was written by Justice
Background
State of the law
In
Although public universities were integrated by court decree, selective colleges and graduate programs, and the professions which stemmed from them, remained almost all white. Many African Americans had attended inferior schools and were ill-prepared to compete in the admissions process. This was unsatisfactory to many activists of the late 1960s, who protested that given the African American's history of discrimination and poverty, some preference should be given to minorities. This became a commonly held liberal position, and large numbers of public and private universities began
The first case taken by the Supreme Court on the subject of the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education was
Allan Bakke
Allan Paul Bakke (born 1940),
Bakke had applied first to the University of Southern California and Northwestern University, in 1972, and both rejected him, making a point of his age, with Northwestern writing that it was above their limit.[20] Medical schools at the time openly practiced age discrimination.[21]
Bakke applied late to UC Davis in 1973 because his mother-in-law was ill.[22][23] This delay may well have cost him admission: although his credentials were outstanding even among applicants not part of the special program, by the time that his candidacy was considered under the school's rolling admissions process, there were few seats left.[24] His application reflected his anxiety about his age, referring to his years of sacrifice for his country as a cause of his interest in medicine.[20]
Bakke received 468 points out of a possible 500 on the admissions committee's rating scale in 1973. Earlier in the year, a rating of 470 had won automatic admission, with some promising applicants being admitted with lower scores. Bakke had a science GPA of 3.44 and an overall GPA of 3.46 after taking science courses at night to qualify for medical school. On the
Bakke complained to Dr. George Lowrey, chairman of the admissions committee at the medical school, about the special admissions program. At Lowrey's request, Assistant Dean Peter Storandt told Bakke that his candidacy had come close and encouraged him to reapply. If he was not accepted the second time, "he could then research the legal question. He had been a good candidate. I thought he'd be accepted and that would end the matter."[28] Storandt also gave Bakke the names of two lawyers interested in the issue of affirmative action.[19] The general counsel for the University of California said, "I don't think Storandt meant to injure the university. It's simply an example of a non-lawyer advising on legal matters."[28] Storandt stated, "I simply gave Allan the response you'd give an irate customer, to try and cool his anger. I realized the university might be vulnerable to legal attack because of its quota, and I had the feeling by then that somebody somewhere would sue the school, but I surely didn't know this would be the case."[28] Storandt was demoted and later left the university. According to Bernard Schwartz in his account of the Bakke case, Storandt was fired.[28][29]
Allan Bakke applied to UC Davis medical school again in 1974.[20] He was interviewed twice: once by a student interviewer, who recommended his admission, and once by Dr. Lowrey, who in his report stated that Bakke "had very definite opinions which were based more on his personal viewpoints than on a study of the whole problem … He was very unsympathetic to the concept of recruiting minority students."[30] Lowrey gave Bakke a poor evaluation, the only part of his application on which he did not have a high score.[31] He was rejected again, although minorities were admitted in both years with significantly lower academic scores through the special program. Not all minority applicants whose admission was recommended under the program gained entry—some were rejected by the admissions committee. This, however, did not affect the number of minority students to be admitted, sixteen.[20][32] Although 272 white people between 1971 and 1974 had applied under this program, none had been successful;[19] in 1974, the special admissions committee summarily rejected all white students who asked for admission under the program.[33] Only one black student and six Latinos were admitted under the regular admissions program in that time period, though significant numbers of Asian students were given entry.[34]
According to a 1976 Los Angeles Times article, the dean of the medical school sometimes intervened on behalf of daughters and sons of the university's "special friends" in order to improve their chances.[35] Among those who benefitted by Dean C. John Tupper's interventions (about five per year) was the son of an influential state assemblyman, who had not even filed an application. The special picks were ended by order of University of California President David S. Saxon in 1976. Bakke's lawyer deemed it impossible to tell if these picks caused Bakke not to be admitted, but, according to an attorney who filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the National Urban League in support of affirmative action, the practice of dean's picks made the university reluctant to go into detail about its admission practices at trial, affecting its case negatively.[36]
Lower court history
On June 20, 1974,
Because of the important issues presented, the
U.S. Supreme Court consideration
Certiorari and amicus curiae briefs
The university requested that the U.S. Supreme Court stay the order requiring Bakke's admission pending its filing of a petition asking for a review. U.S. Supreme Court Justice
The university filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in December 1976.[52] The papers of some of the justices who participated in the Bakke case reveal that the case was three times considered by the court in January and February 1977. Four votes were needed for the court to grant certiorari, and it had at least that number each time; however, it was twice put over for reconsideration at the request of one of the justices. A number of civil rights organizations filed a joint brief as amicus curiae, urging the court to deny review, on the grounds that the Bakke trial had failed to develop the issues fully as the university had not introduced evidence of past discrimination or of bias in the MCAT. On February 22, the court granted certiorari, with the case to be argued in its October 1977 term.[53][54]
The parties duly filed their briefs. The university's legal team was now headed by former
Fifty-eight
In addition to the various other amici curiae, the United States filed a brief through the Solicitor General, as it may without leave of court under the Supreme Court's rules. When consideration of Bakke began in the new administration of President Jimmy Carter, early drafts of the brief both supported affirmative action and indicated that the program should be struck down and Bakke admitted. This stance reflected the mixed support of affirmative action at that time by the Democrats. Minorities and others in that party complained, and, in late July 1977, Carter announced that the government's brief would firmly support affirmative action. That document, filed October 3, 1977 (nine days before the oral argument), stated that the government supported programs tailored to make up for past discrimination, but opposed rigid set-asides.[59] The United States urged the court to remand the case to allow for further fact-finding (a position also taken by civil rights groups in their amicus curiae briefs).[59]
While the case was awaiting argument, another white student, Rita Clancy, sued for admission to UC Davis Medical School on the same grounds as Bakke had. In September 1977, she was ordered admitted pending the outcome of the Bakke case. After Bakke was decided, the university dropped efforts to oust her, stating that, as she had successfully completed one year of medical school, she should remain.[60]
Argument and deliberation
Oral argument in Bakke took place on October 12, 1977. There was intense public interest in the case; prospective attendees began to line up the afternoon before. The court session took two hours, with Cox arguing for the university, Colvin for Bakke, and Solicitor General
Deliberation began with the justices lobbying each other through written memorandum.[64] At a conference held among justices on October 15, 1977, they decided to request further briefing from the parties on the applicability of Title VI.[65] The supplemental brief for the university was filed on November 16, and argued that Title VI was a statutory version of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and did not allow private plaintiffs, such as Bakke, to pursue a claim under it. Bakke's brief, submitted by Colvin, claimed that Bakke did have a private right of action and that his client did not want the university to suffer the remedy prescribed under Title VI for discriminatory institutions, that is the loss of federal funding, and that he wanted to be admitted to the medical school.[66]
In November, Justice Blackmun absented himself to have prostate surgery at the
On December 9, at a conference, with Blackmun still absent, the justices considered the case. Four justices (Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, and Justices Potter Stewart, Rehnquist, and John Paul Stevens) favored affirming the California Supreme Court's decision. Three justices (Brennan, White, and Thurgood Marshall) wanted to uphold the program. Powell stated his views, after which Brennan, hoping to cobble together a five-justice majority to support the program, or at least to support the general principle of affirmative action, suggested to Powell that applying Powell's standard meant that the lower court decision would be affirmed in part and reversed in part. Powell agreed.[69]
When Blackmun returned in early 1978. he was slow to make his position on Bakke known. On May 1, he circulated a memorandum to his colleagues indicating that he would join Brennan's bloc in support of affirmative action and the university's program. This meant that Powell's vote would decide the majority opinion. Over the following eight weeks, Powell fine-tuned his opinion to secure the willingness of each group to join part of it. The other justices began work on opinions that would set forth their views.[70]
Decision
The Supreme Court's decision in Bakke was announced on June 28, 1978. The justices penned six opinions; none of them, in full, had the support of a majority of the court. In a
Powell's opinion
Justice Powell based a significant portion of his diversity rationale in the decision on the First Amendment, which has been significantly emphasized by later scholars.[72][73] Justice Powell, after setting forth the facts of the case, discussed and found it unnecessary to decide whether Bakke had a private right of action under Title VI, assuming that was so for purposes of the case.[74] He then discussed the scope of Title VI, opining that it barred only those racial classifications forbidden by the Constitution.[75]
Turning to the program itself, Powell determined that it was not simply a goal, as the university had contended, but a racial qualification—assuming that UC Davis could find sixteen minimally qualified minority students, there were only 84 seats in the freshman class open to white students, whereas minorities could compete for any spot in the 100-member class. He traced the history of the jurisprudence under the Equal Protection Clause, and concluded that it protected all, not merely African Americans or only minorities. Only if it served a
Powell noted that the university, in its briefs, had cited decisions where there had been race-conscious remedies, such as in the school desegregation cases, but found them inapposite as there was no history of racial discrimination at the University of California-Davis Medical School to remedy. He cited precedent that when an individual was entirely foreclosed from opportunities or benefits provided by the government and enjoyed by those of a different background or race, this was a suspect classification. Such discrimination was only justifiable when necessary to a compelling governmental interest. He rejected assertions by the university that government had a compelling interest in boosting the number of minority doctors, and deemed too nebulous the argument that the special admissions program would help bring doctors to underserved parts of California—after all, that purpose would also be served by admitting white applicants interested in practicing in minority communities. Nevertheless, Powell opined that government had a compelling interest in a racially diverse student body.[77]
In a part of the opinion concurred in by Chief Justice Burger and his allies, Powell found that the program, with its set-aside of a specific number of seats for minorities, did discriminate against Bakke, as less restrictive programs, such as making race one of several factors in admission, would serve the same purpose. Powell offered the example (set out in an appendix) of the admissions program at Harvard University as one he believed would pass constitutional muster—that institution did not set rigid quotas for minorities, but actively recruited them and sought to include them as more than a token part of a racially and culturally diverse student body. Although a white student might still lose out to a minority with lesser academic qualifications, both white and minority students might gain from non-objective factors such as the ability to play sports or a musical instrument. Accordingly, there was no constitutional violation in using race as one of several factors.[78][79]
Powell opined that, because the university had admitted that it could not prove that Bakke would not have been admitted even had there been no special admissions program, the portion of the California Supreme Court's decision ordering Bakke's admission was proper, and was upheld. Nevertheless, the state was entitled to consider race as one of several factors, and the portion of the California court's judgment that had ordered the contrary was overruled.[80]
Other opinions
Brennan delivered the joint statement of four justices: Marshall, White, Blackmun and himself. In verbally introducing their opinion in the Supreme Court courtroom, Brennan stated that the "central meaning" of the Bakke decision was that there was a majority of the court in favor of the continuation of affirmative action.[81] In the joint opinion, those four justices wrote, "government may take race into account when it acts not to demean or insult any racial group, but to remedy disadvantages cast on minorities by past racial prejudice".[82] They suggested that any admissions program with the intention of remedying past race discrimination would be constitutional, whether that involved adding bonus points for race, or setting aside a specific number of places for them.[83]
White issued an opinion expressing his view that there was not a private right of action under Title VI.
Justice Stevens, joined by Burger, Stewart and Rehnquist, concurring in part and dissenting in part in the judgment, found it unnecessary to determine whether a racial preference was ever allowed under the Constitution. A narrow finding that the university had discriminated against Bakke, violating Title VI, was sufficient, and the court was correct to admit him.[88] "It is therefore perfectly clear that the question whether race can ever be used as a factor in an admissions decision is not an issue in this case, and that discussion of that issue is inappropriate."[89] According to Stevens, "[t]he meaning of the Title VI ban on exclusion is crystal clear: Race cannot be the basis of excluding anyone from a federally funded program".[90][91] He concluded, "I concur in the Court's judgment insofar as it affirms the judgment of the Supreme Court of California. To the extent that it purports to do anything else, I respectfully dissent."[92]
Reaction
Newspapers stressed different aspects of Bakke, often reflecting their political ideology. The conservative Chicago Sun-Times bannered Bakke's admission in its headline, while noting that the court had permitted affirmative action under some circumstances. The Washington Post, a liberal newspaper, began its headline in larger-than-normal type, "Affirmative Action Upheld" before going on to note that the court had admitted Bakke and curbed quotas.[93] The Wall Street Journal, in a headline, deemed Bakke "The Decision Everybody Won".[94] According to Oxford University Chair of Jurisprudence Ronald Dworkin, the court's decision "was received by the press and much of the public with great relief, as an act of judicial statesmanship that gave to each party in the national debate what it seemed to want most".[95]
Attorney General Griffin Bell, after speaking with President Jimmy Carter, stated, "my general view is that affirmative action has been enhanced", and that such programs in the federal government would continue as planned.[96] Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair Eleanor Holmes Norton told the media "that the Bakke case has not left me with any duty to instruct the EEOC staff to do anything different".[97]
Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe wrote in 1979, "the Court thus upheld the kind of affirmative action plan used by most American colleges and universities, and disallowed only the unusually mechanical—some would say unusually candid, others would say unusually impolitic—approach taken by the Medical School" of UC Davis.[98] Robert M. O'Neil wrote in the California Law Review the same year that only rigid quotas were foreclosed to admissions officers and even "relatively subtle changes in the process by which applications were reviewed, or in the resulting minority representation, could well produce a different alignment [of justices]".[99] Law professor and future judge Robert Bork wrote in the pages of The Wall Street Journal that the justices who had voted to uphold affirmative action were "hard-core racists of reverse discrimination".[96]
Allan Bakke had given few interviews during the pendency of the case, and, on the day it was decided, went to work as usual in Palo Alto.[56] He issued a statement through attorney Colvin expressing his pleasure in the result and that he planned to begin his medical studies that fall.[100] Most of the lawyers and university personnel who would have to deal with the aftermath of Bakke doubted the decision would change very much. The large majority of affirmative action programs at universities, unlike that of the UC Davis medical school, did not use rigid numerical quotas for minority admissions and could continue.[101] According to Bernard Schwartz in his account of Bakke, the Supreme Court's decision "permits admission officers to operate programs which grant racial preferences—provided that they do not do so as blatantly as was done under the sixteen-seat 'quota' provided at Davis".[102]
Aftermath
Allan Bakke, "America's best known freshman", enrolled at the UC Davis medical school on September 25, 1978.[103] Seemingly oblivious to the questions of the press and the shouts of protesters, he stated only "I am happy to be here" before entering to register.[103] When the university declined to pay his legal fees, Bakke went to court, and on January 15, 1980, was awarded $183,089.[100] Graduating from the UC Davis medical school in 1982 at age 42, he went on to a career as an anesthesiologist at the Mayo Clinic and at the Olmsted Medical Group in Rochester, Minnesota.[104][105]
In 1996, Californians
Dworkin warned in 1978 that "Powell's opinion suffers from fundamental weaknesses, and if the Court is to arrive at a coherent position, far more judicial work remains to be done than a relieved public yet realizes".
The admission to medical school of Patrick Chavis, one of the black doctors admitted under the medical school's affirmative action program instead of Bakke, was widely praised by many notable parties, including
See also
- Civil rights movement
- Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
Notes and references
Notes:
- ^ Under Supreme Court precedent, a plurality opinion, for purposes of precedent, is to be "viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.” Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977).
- Proposition 209 mandates that "the state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."[107]
References:
- ^ Wilkinson, p. 79.
- ^ Wilkinson, p. 24.
- ^ Ball, p. 6.
- ^ a b Schwartz, pp. 28–29.
- Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968).
- ^ Green, 391 U.S. at 441.
- ^ Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1970).
- ^ Ball, pp. 3–10.
- ^ a b Schwartz, p. 4.
- ^ Bakke, 238 U.S. at 272–275.
- ^ Bakke, 238 U.S. at 274.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 275.
- ^ a b c d Ball, pp. 22–45.
- ^ DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974).
- ^ DeFunis, 416 U.S. at 314–317.
- ^ DeFunis, 416 U.S. at 319–320.
- ^ DeFunis, 416 U.S. at 350.
- SF Gate. Archivedfrom the original on March 7, 2016. Retrieved May 21, 2017.
- ^ ISBN 978-0819561992.
- ^ ISBN 978-0156167826.
- ISBN 978-1439129098.
- ^ Lindsey, Robert (June 29, 1978). "Bakke: A man driven to become a doctor". The New York Times via Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. p. 8.
- ^ Santa Clara Law Review, p. 231.
- ^ Schwartz, p. 5.
- ^ a b Bakke, 438 U.S. at 276.
- ^ Ball, p. 52.
- ISBN 978-0306811265.
- ^ a b c d Benfell, pp. 17, 52–54.
- ^ Schwartz, pp. 6–7.
- ^ Schwartz, pp. 7–8.
- ^ Schwartz, p. 8.
- ^ a b Bakke, 438 U.S. at 277.
- ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 16, 2023.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 275–276.
- ^ Trombley, William (July 5, 1976). "Medical Dean Aids 'Special Interest' Applicants". Los Angeles Times. pp. C1, C4. Archived from the original on February 2, 2014. Retrieved August 16, 2013.(subscription required)
- ^ Nesbitt, Tim (October 1977). "Bakke passed over for white VIPs". The East Bay Voice. Berkeley, CA. pp. 1, 10.
- ^ a b c d e Complete Case Record, p. 7.
- ^ Ball, pp. 56–57.
- ^ a b Ball, p. 58.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 279.
- ^ Schwartz, pp. 18–19.
- ^ Schwartz, p. 19.
- ^ a b Ball, pp. 58–60.
- ^ Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, 18 Cal. 3d 34, 132 Cal. Rptr. 680, 553 P.2d 1152 (1976).
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 279–280.
- ^ Bakke, 18 Cal. 3d at 55.
- ^ Stevens, p. 24.
- ^ Bakke, 18 Cal. 3d at 90.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 280.
- ^ Bakke, 18 Cal. 3d at 64.
- ^ Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 429 U.S. 953 (1976) (Rehnquist, J., as circuit justice, granting stay).
- ^ a b Ball, p. 61.
- ^ Ball, pp. 64–67.
- ^ Epstein & Knight, pp. 346–347.
- ^ Ball, pp. 68–69.
- ^ a b Robert C. Barring, "Introduction to the Bakke case" in Complete Case Record at xxi–xxiv.
- ^ Ball, pp. 69–70.
- ^ Ball, pp. 76–83.
- ^ a b Ball, pp. 74–77.
- ^ "School drops attempt to bar white student". The Bulletin. Bend, Oregon. July 5, 1978. Retrieved September 28, 2013.
- ^ Schwartz, pp. 47–52.
- ^ Weaver Jr., Warren (October 13, 1977). "Justices hear Bakke arguments but give little hint on decision" (PDF). The New York Times. pp. A1, B12. Retrieved October 30, 2022.(paywall registration required to view)
- ^ Schwartz, p. 48.
- ^ Epstein & Knight, pp. 347–349.
- ^ Ball, pp. 103–104.
- ^ Ball, pp. 105–106.
- ^ Ball, p. 107.
- ^ Schwartz, pp. 81–85.
- ^ Schwartz, pp. 98–107.
- ^ Schwartz, pp. 120–141.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 265–272.
- ^ Feingold, Jonathon (2019). "Hidden in Plain Sight: A More Compelling Case for Diversity". Utah Law Review. 2019 (1): 63, 66}.
- ^ Boddie, Elise (2016). "The Indignities of Color Blindness". UCLA L. Rev. Discourse. 64.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 272–284.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 284–287.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 287–299.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 300–315.
- ^ Ball, pp. 137–139.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 300–320.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 320–321.
- ^ Schwartz, pp. 146–147.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 325.
- ^ a b Bakke, 438 U.S. at 378.
- ^ a b Ball, p. 140.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 387.
- ^ Ball, pp. 139–140.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 407.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 409–411.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 411.
- ^ "Excerpts from opinions by Supreme Court justices in the Allan P. Bakke case" (PDF). The New York Times. June 29, 1978. p. A20. Retrieved August 14, 2013.(subscription required)
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 418.
- ^ Bakke, 438 U.S. at 421.
- ^ Ball, pp. 140–141.
- ^ Schwartz, pp. 151–152.
- ^ a b Ronald Dworkin, "The Bakke decision: did it decide anything?" in Complete Case Record at xxv–xxxiv.
- ^ a b Ball, p. 142.
- ^ Ball, pp. 142–143.
- ^ Tribe, p. 864.
- ^ O'Neil, p. 144.
- ^ a b Ball, p. 143.
- ^ Herbers, John (June 29, 1978). "A plateau for minorities" (PDF). The New York Times. pp. A1, A22. Retrieved August 15, 2013.(subscription required)
- ^ Schwartz, p. 153.
- ^ a b Kushman, Rick (September 27, 1978). "Bakke enters UC Davis Medical School". The California Aggie. Davis, California. pp. 1, 8.
- ^ Ball, p. 46.
- ^ Diamond, S.J. (August 30, 1992). "Where are they now? : A drifter, a deadbeat and an intensely private doctor". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on October 19, 2013. Retrieved October 5, 2013.
- ^ Egelko, Bob (February 14, 2012). "U.S. appeals court hears challenge to Prop. 209". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on November 3, 2012. Retrieved August 17, 2013.
- ^ "Text of Proposition 209". California Secretary of State. Archived from the original on June 10, 2015. Retrieved August 17, 2013.
- ^ Ball, p. 164.
- ^ "California governor touts 4 percent solution". AP via Bangor Daily News. January 6, 1999. Retrieved October 6, 2013.
- ^ Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 Archived 2013-08-16 at archive.today (2003).
- ^ Liptak, Adam (June 25, 2013). "Justices step up scrutiny of race in college entry". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 6, 2013. Retrieved August 16, 2013.
- ^ Fisher v. University of Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013).
- ^ Shaw, Jonathan (June 29, 2023). "Supreme Court Bans Race-Conscious Admissions". Harvard Magazine. Archived from the original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved June 29, 2023.
- ^ Liposuction Doctor Has License Revoked, Los Angeles Times, August 26, 1998, Archive
- ^ Patrick Chavis Dies, Washington Post, August 12, 2002.
- ^ Doctor in Landmark Anti-Bias Case Slain, Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2002, Archive
- ^ Affirmative Action Can Be Fatal, Boston Globe, August 14, 1997.
- ^ Patrick Chavis, 50, Affirmative Action Figure, New York Times, August 15, 2002, Archive
- ^ The Fall of an Affirmative Action Hero, Wall St. Journal, August 27, 1997.
- ^ Affirmative action turns lives into tragedies, Desert News, September 2, 2002, Archive
- ^ “Friends” of Blacks, Capitalism magazine, September 26, 2002, Archive
- ^ Black Liberty Matters, The Conservative, May 10, 2021.
Bibliography
- Ball, Howard (2000). The Bakke Case: Race, Education, and Affirmative Action. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-070061046-4.
- Benfell, Carol (Fall 1977). "Should the Constitution really be colorblind?". Barrister. 3 (4). American Bar Association, Young Lawyers Section: 17, 52–54.
- Epstein, Lee; Knight, Jack (2001). "Piercing the Veil: William J. Brennan's Account of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke". Yale Law & Policy Review. 19 (2). New Haven, CT: Yale Law & Policy Review, Inc.: 341–379. JSTOR 40239568.
- JSTOR 3480092.
- Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke Complete Case Record. Vol. 1. Englewood, CO: Information Handling Services. 1978. ISBN 0-910972-91-5.
- "Review of The Bakke Case: Race, Education, and Affirmative Action". Santa Clara Law Review. Santa Clara, CA: Santa Clara Law Digital Commons.
- Schwartz, Bernard (1988). Behind Bakke: Affirmative Action and the Supreme Court. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-7878-X..
- Stevens, John M. (September 1977). "The good news of Bakke". The Phi Delta Kappan. 59 (1). Arlington, VA: Phi Delta Kappa International: 23–26. JSTOR 20298825.
- JSTOR 1340556.
- ISBN 0-19-502897-X.
External links
- Text of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke from C-SPAN's Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions