Board of Regents v. Bakke

The side arguing for the Board of Regents at University of California at Davis brought up many valid points regarding Mr. Bakke's claim that they were discriminating based on race. The first was that the racial quotas they had in place were implemented as reparations for the internment camps Japanese suffered through during WWII and the wrongdoing of minority students in the past. It's a major milestone in diminishing discrimination, as African-Americans are finally being allowed higher education. Another argument was that Mr. Bakke could have been admitted, he just needed to surpass the scores of the other white students. 1 Corinthians 12:14-19 was cited then, speaking of the valuable functions for all different parts of the body. Just as there is differences in the body, so should there be diversity on the campus. Lastly, a sad statistic that only 2.1% of doctors in America were people of color, which was a pretty major social problem. This could be fixed by getting more minority students into the profession.

Mr. Bakke's attorneys argued that Mr.Bakke's superior test scores and GPA over those of the minority applicants should've gained him entry, and them being picked over him was discrimination.It was not equal to everyone, because it was denying the applicants with better resumes admission solely because of race. They also argued that Affirmative Action was bad for society, because the lesser qualified students weren't ready for the challenge of a law school of such a caliber. It's telling these minority students that not being good enough is alright, and is basically reverse discrimination. Simply having differences does not mean diversity. Another point was the artificial nature of the quota system. A system made by human beings trying to copy something natural like diversity is bound to fail, as they're being picked based on a falsified system. Lastly, they argued that a program like this was unnecessary because of all the progress that had already been made in terms of integration and diversity.

I, after hearing each side's arguments, was even more conflicted on this issue than before. And I wholly agree with the decision of the court to not take one side or the other, but rather to split up the issue. I don't think it's fair to accept one race over another to artificially generate "diversity" because then it taints the caliber of the school. But at the same time, these people were being severely under-represented, and needed some form of incentive to allow them into schools. The concept of race as a factor, not a requirement, in admitting students into a school was a great compromise in my eyes, but as a recent applicant to colleges, it does make me feel a bit like Allan Bakke. Obviously I'm not a victim of racial discrimination, but it makes you wonder what the color of your skin had to do with your admittance to many institutions, and had you been born of a different nationality, would you be attending a much better school that you'd been denied to? As a whole, I'm conflicted on the matter. I understand the base concept is rooted in diminishing discrimination, but there's always a concern of merit based on skin color in the back of my mind.