Summary of UC Regents v. Bakke (1978)
UCDMC reserves 16 of its 100 spots for members of a disadvantaged group. Bakke argues that he would’ve been admitted if not for the quota. S.Ct. rules:4 (brennan four); 1 (powell); 4 (statutory four)
a. Brennan four: Quota is ok b/c this is to remedy past discrimination.
(1) Applies midlevel/intermediate levels of scrutiny (less “fit" than necessity)
b. Powell: Not ok, but applies strict scrutiny. Diversity is ok as a compelling state interest, but a bad “fit."
(1) Quotas/numbers are bad. Does not assess the quality of the non-minorities v. the “16"
(2) Numbers are too rigid that they become irrational.
c. Statutory four: Quota not ok, but on statutory grounds—not constitutional grounds