In 1973, a thirty-three-year-old Marine veteran and engineer named Allan Bakke applied to the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine. He had a 3.46 GPA and solid MCAT scores. He got rejected.
Thinking it might be his age—some schools then were weird about older applicants—he tried again a year later. Rejected again. This time, though, he found out about a "special admissions" program. The school was reserving 16 out of 100 spots specifically for minority students.
Bakke’s scores were higher than some of the students getting those 16 spots. He sued. He didn't just want a seat; he wanted the whole system declared unconstitutional. This sparked a legal war that basically defined how we talked about race in America for half a century.
The Messy Reality of the 1978 Decision
When people talk about Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, they usually treat it like a clean-cut victory for one side. It wasn't. Honestly, it was a mess.
The Supreme Court was so split they couldn't even agree on a single majority opinion. Instead, we got six different opinions. Justice Lewis Powell ended up being the "man in the middle," casting the tie-breaking vote that gave both sides a win and a loss.
📖 Related: Weather Forecast Lockport NY: Why Today’s Snow Isn’t Just Hype
On one hand, the Court told UC Davis: "You can't do that." They ruled that rigid racial quotas—setting aside a specific number of seats based purely on skin color—violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bakke won. He finally got into medical school.
But here’s the kicker. Powell also wrote that while quotas were illegal, race could still be a "plus factor." He argued that colleges had a "compelling interest" in a diverse student body. Basically, he said diversity makes the classroom better for everyone, so it's okay to consider race as one small part of a much bigger, holistic picture.
Why Powell's "Plus Factor" Changed Everything
For the next 45 years, the "Powell Model" was the law of the land. It’s why your college application had those little boxes to check.
Colleges stopped saying "we need 15% Black students" and started saying "we want a diverse environment where race is one of many things we look at." It was a subtle shift, but a huge legal loophole. It allowed affirmative action to survive through the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s.
👉 See also: Economics Related News Articles: What the 2026 Headlines Actually Mean for Your Wallet
Critics called it "reverse discrimination." Supporters called it "leveling the playing field."
The 2023 Earthquake: SFFA v. Harvard
Fast forward to 2023. The legal shield Powell built finally shattered. In the case of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard, the Supreme Court essentially took a sledgehammer to the Bakke precedent.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. He didn't mince words. He basically said that the way Harvard and UNC were using race was "zero-sum." If you give a "plus" to one person because of their race, you are inevitably giving a "minus" to someone else.
The Court ruled that admissions programs must be "colorblind." While a student can still talk about how race impacted their life in an essay, the school can't use a checkbox to tip the scales.
✨ Don't miss: Why a Man Hits Girl for Bullying Incidents Go Viral and What They Reveal About Our Breaking Point
What This Means for You Right Now
If you’re applying to grad school or looking at how companies hire, the ghost of the Bakke case is still everywhere. Even though the 2023 ruling technically "ended" affirmative action in admissions, the fallout is complicated.
- The Essay is Everything: Since schools can't look at a box, they are looking at the story. If you've overcome discrimination, you have to write about it. It’s no longer about your identity; it’s about your experience with that identity.
- Medical Schools are Worried: Studies from places like the AAMC show that when race-conscious admissions are banned, minority enrollment in med schools often drops by about 17%. This creates a massive concern for "doctor-patient" matching in underserved communities.
- Corporate DEI is Next: We're already seeing lawsuits hitting law firms and tech companies. If quotas were illegal in 1978 and "plus factors" became illegal for colleges in 2023, many lawyers think private businesses are the next target.
Actionable Insights for the Post-Bakke Era
The world of 2026 is very different from 1978. If you're navigating this landscape, here is what you actually need to do:
1. Focus on "Holistic" Narratives
If you are an applicant, don't just rely on your stats. Schools are now legally required to look at you as an individual. Use your personal statement to highlight specific instances where your background—whether it's race, class, or geography—shaped your character.
2. Watch the State Laws
Places like California (where this all started) and Florida have even stricter bans than the Supreme Court. If you’re applying to a public university in those states, they’ve been "colorblind" since the 90s. Look at their models to see how they maintain diversity without using race (like the "Top 10% Rule").
3. Audit Your Recruitment
If you’re a hiring manager, stop looking at "diversity hires" and start looking at "diversity of thought and experience." The legal trend is moving toward merit-based systems that account for "distance traveled"—meaning how much someone achieved relative to the resources they had.
The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case was the beginning of an era that just ended. We are now in the "Post-Affirmative Action" world. It's confusing, it's litigious, and honestly, it's still being written.