Bakke V. Board of Regents

         

        I am here today to argue, from an economic standpoint against Allan Bakke. I want to explain why the university is correct in their choice of denying Bakke and allowing for and using the 16 special admission program students. In this case we confront a sensitive issue. It is whether a special admission program that benefits disadvantaged minority students who apply for admission to the medical school, offends the constitutional rights of better qualified applicants. These applicants were denied admission because they were not identified with a minority. Let's start by introducing the case and addressing some key details. I felt like I needed to do that by talking from the standpoint of present to past.






        In 1973 and 1974, Allan Bakke, a Caucasian, applied for admission to the University of California at David. There were 2,644 applicants for the 1973 entering class and 3,737 for the 1974 class. Only 100 places are available each year, of which 16 are filled under the special admission program. Applicants for the remaining 84 places are chosen through the normal admission process.

        Bakke did not apply for consideration under the special program and was denied admission in both years. On top of that he was not admitted to any other medical school. He filed a complaint against the University seeking mandatory, injunctive, and declaratory relief to try to get the University to admit him. He alleged that he was qualified for admission and the sole reason his application was rejected was that he was of the Caucasian race. He also alleged that all students admitted under the special program were members of racial minorities. That the program applied separate or I guess you could say preferential, standards of admission. And that the use of separate standards resulted in the acceptance of minority applicants who were less qualified for the study of medicine than Bakke and other non minority applicants that were not selected. He claimed he had been the victim of “invidious discrimination” because of his race. Which was in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

        The University filed a cross-complaint for declaratory relief. To make this clear, a declaratory relief is a court's judgment stating the rights of parties. But without ordering any specific action or listing awards for damages. Anyways, they searched out for a determination that the special admission program was valid. The cross-complaint verified that the University considers the minority status of an applicant as only one factor in selecting students for admission. That the purposes of the special program, to promote diversity in the student body and the medical profession. And from my standpoint, to expand medical education opportunities to people from economically or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds.

        Even the committee for Bakke said this “Individual merit has never been strictly applied,'' and he said. ''In universities generally, there have always been preferences for children of alumni, for skilled athletes and musicians.'' In the brief, the committee argued that preferences should be given to students who have overcome economic handicaps, but such decisions should not be made strictly on the basis of race.

        Now maybe you can understand that my argument is about more than just race. Income should be considered as part of the evaluation of applicants. It should complement the consideration of race and ethnicity. Income can serve as a good indicator of a household's ability to cover regular expenses. See, wealth makes it easier for families to relocate to better school districts. Or to purchase test preparation books and classes. Or to pay or help pay college tuition. Maybe for some of these reasons, the students applying for the 16 open spots were at a disadvantage. That it was ok that they had a lower test score than Bakke. Therefore, I think it was the right decision to open 16 spots specifically for this reason. That is the best argument I can come up with.

        For decades, elite colleges and universities closed their doors to students of color. And many of these students struggle with their families financial standing. As a result, students of color remain vastly underrepresented at the country’s top-tier institutions. Affirmative action helps with the effects of this discrimination by allowing colleges and universities to be more intentional in the ways they evaluate applicants. Put simply, affirmative action ensures colleges and universities provide opportunity to those historically shut out of the system. For reasons of race, ethnicity, income, or identity. For this reason, it is critically important that policymakers and legislators work to protect the use of race-conscious admissions policies across the country. If not, inequality will continue to persist, and the American higher education system will fail to serve the people that could benefit the most. And that is how I can best explain my mode of argumentation, economics.