Basically Law

Read the opinion here.

Issue.  Does a school admission's program that sets aside a certain number of positions for minorities violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Background.  The Medical School of the University of California at Davis had 100 places for its entering class.  To ensure ethnic diversity, the School set aside 16 of those spots for ethnic minorities.  A white applicant was rejected even though he had higher academic achievement than some of the minority students admitted into the program.  The white applicant sued and claimed the School's set-aside for minority students violated the Equal Protection Clause.

The California Supreme Court ruled that the admission program involved a racial classification so strict scrutiny was applicable.  Since the School could not meet the exacting scrutiny, the admission program was unconstitutional.  Further, the California Supreme Court found that race cannot be regarded at all in School's admission.  The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court found that strict scrutiny applied because of the set aside.  However, the Court also found that the California Supreme Court was incorrect when it found that Equal Protection prevented universities from considering race at all in its admission policy.

Court's Analysis.  This case is interesting in that one justice basically decided both issues in this case.  Justice Powell had the support of four additional justices on the issue that strict scrutiny applied to the race based admission policy.  At the same time, the other four justices agreed that race could be considered in the admission of students, as long as it was not the sole determinative.

The Court refused to accept that Equal Protection can allow for "benign" discrimination to remedy past discrimination.  Since white students could only compete for 84 spots while minority students could compete for all 100 spots, the admission policy was racially discriminatory.  Even if the discrimination is against whites, strict scrutiny is applicable.

The University had 4 justifications for its race-based distinction:

1. reducing the historic deficit of traditionally disfavored minorities in the medical profession
2. countering the effects of societal discrimination
3. increasing the number of physicians who would practice in underserved communities
4. obtaining the educational benefits that flow from an ethnically diverse student body

The Court did not find any justification to meet the exacting standard of strict scrutiny.

While the State has a great interest in reducing the effects of discrimination it cannot do so by discriminating against another group.  Discrimination for its own sake is forbidden by the Constitution.  The State cannot counter the effects of societal discrimination by harming innocent individuals without some judicial, legislative or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations.  No such findings were made in this case.  The State has provided no evidence that minority physicians are needed to practice in underserved communities (o that they would serve such communities and/or white ones would not).

As for creating a diverse student body, the Court found that it is a constitutionally permissible goal.  An otherwise qualified student from a particular background - either ethnic, geographic, economic, etc. - can add to the academic experience of the student body.  However, a racial classification is not necessary to promote this interest.  Race can be one of many factors to be considered when creating a diverse student body, but race cannot be the sole determinative, as in this case.  Therefore, the means to achieving this goal is not constitutional.

Since race can be one of many factors to be considered in creating a diverse student body, the California Supreme Court erred by finding that race cannot be considered at all.  It can be, it just cannot be the sole determinative or a set-aside/quota.

Afterword.  This is one of these reverse discrimination cases that make a great deal of sense.  The Courts will strike down quotas, but it will allow an institution of higher learning to consider the race of an otherwise qualified applicant in order to create a diverse student body.  Race is just another consideration, along with socio-economic background, geographic location, ethnicity, religion, etc. that institutions of higher education may employ.  There is nothing wrong with that.