Regents v. Bakke Mock Trial

In class, we held a mock trial on the case Regents v. Bakke. My speech was giving context based on Bakke's side and how race relations were during this time. This speech mostly does not reflect my opinion, but defended my part in the mock trial.

The case Regents v. Bakke  was argued on October 12, 1977. Allen Bakke had been rejected twice from the University of California Medical School at Davis. Bakke was a white male that was 35 years old. He was not rejected because of his grades and test scores, but because affirmative action made it that there were sixteen spots reserved for those that were “qualified minorities” for those spots, which he was not. His scores for admissions had been above average, making it that he should never have been denied acceptance. 

There were only 100 spots open for admission in the medical school, making it that there were 84 spots for whites and then 16 spots for minorities left. This added extra competition and another factor to admission and acceptance. 

The question being asked in this case was, “Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?” 

Because of not being accepted, Bakke sued the school as he thought having a “clear-cut racial quota system” violated both the constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He believed that it was not right that he was denied because of his race. He should have gotten into the university with no issue. 

Bakke believed that him not getting in because he was white is “reverse discrimination.” Its not that all races should not have a chance, but that race should not be one of the more important determining factors of if a student is admitted to a university. What should be the important factors should be academics and character. 

Affirmative action allowed there to be spots set aside for minorities since it was trying to fix the issues of past discrimination. This did not work in favor of Bakke since he had the scores and academic record that should have earned him a spot. It could be unfair since the person that was admitted instead could have lower test scores and would be less qualified. Someone with a good record should be rewarded with admission for all of their hard work. 

Racial relations in the 1970s were still not in a good spot. Because of this, there was tension between races and affirmative action was trying to fix past issues, but it did have the ability to upset those that were effected negatively from it. This is what happened to Bakke. 

If there had not been 16 percent of the class being set aside, Bakke could’ve made it into the program. Bakke was affected by this even though the intentions weren’t to keep people from the program because of their race. Affirmative action was supposed to make it that everyone was included, not to hold people back from their goals and dreams.

Sources: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/regents_of_the_university_of_california_v_bakke_(1978)#:~:text=Primary%20tabs-,Regents%20of%20the%20University%20of%20California%20v.,Civil%20Rights%20Act%20of%201964. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action 

https://www.britannica.com/event/Bakke-decision