Allan Bakke applied to University of California School at Davis twice and was rejected both times. The school reserved 16 places in each entering class of one hundred for minorities that are qualified to attend the university, as part of the school's affirmative action program, in an effort to make amends of the many unfair minority rejections from the medical program. Bakke’s qualification surpassed all the minority students admitted in the 2 years Bakke's application were rejected. Bakke went to court, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was rejected based on race. On March 19, 1976, the case was brought to the state Supreme Court. The university was banned by the court from using race in the admissions process…show more content… Is the special admissions program of the University of California constitutional? Can race be considered as a factor in the admissions process? Did the University of California violate the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing on affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke’s application for admission to its medical school?
The court session took two hours, with Cox arguing for the university, Colvin for Bakke, and Solicitor General Wade H. McCree for the United States. Colvin was admonished by Justice Byron White for arguing the facts, rather than the Constitution.
Beginning the day after the argument, the justices tried to convince each other through written memorandum. On October 15, 1977, the justices decided to request further briefing from the parties on the applicability of Title VI. The supplemental brief for the university was filed on and argued that Title VI was a lawful version of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and did not allow private plaintiffs, such as Bakke, to go through a claim under it on November 16. Bakke's brief arrived the following day. Colvin stated that Bakke did have a right of action, and that Bakke did not want the university to suffer the outcome resulted under Title VI for discrimination but only wanted to be
