In the auto ethnography that I am writing, a topic that I discuss is affirmative action. The basic definition of what affirmative action is is “Affirmative action policies often focus on employment and education. In institutions of higher education, affirmative action refers to admission policies that provide equal access to education for those groups that have been historically excluded or underrepresented, such as women and minorities.” I am focusing on affirmative action in schools, and how it may have related to my college experience. However, to better understand affirmative action, we should look at an important historical event dealing with it. The significant case that I am going to discuss is Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). This case dealt with affirmative action in schools and involved the student (Bakke) who was a white male that had applied to  the University of California Medical School at Davis twice, and was rejected both times. Bakke argued that he had all the criteria to get in, but was being rejected in favor of more minority applicants and believed this was unfair. The ultimate decision that the court decided to make was that the university had to accept Bakke into their school, but they also ruled that it was constitutional to consider race when accepting students for admission, as long as there was other criteria and it was not solely based on race.

How would this have been viewed by the public now? Back then, the decision was widely accepted by mostly everyone and newspapers loved using affirmative action for their headlines and stating it had been upheld. “Newspapers stressed different aspects of Bakke, often reflecting their political ideology. The conservative Chicago Sun-Times bannered Bakke’s admission in its headline, while noting that the court had permitted affirmative action under some circumstances. The Washington Post, a liberal newspaper, began its headline in larger-than-normal type, “Affirmative Action Upheld” before going on to note that the court had admitted Bakke and curbed quotas. The Wall Street Journal, in a headline, deemed Bakke “The Decision Everybody Won”. According to Oxford University Chair of Jurisprudence Ronald Dworkin, the court’s decision “was received by the press and much of the public with great relief, as an act of judicial statesmanship that gave to each party in the national debate what it seemed to want most.” Would people still be as happy about the fact that the decision to let race be a factor in admissions was upheld? What if Bakke was of a different race? How would that have changed things? I believe the decision might have been slightly different if Bakke was not a white male and additionally, if a ruling like this happened today, I do not believe people would have been as enthusiastic about race being a factor in admissions.

Considering just last year in July, the Trump administration decided to rescind Obama-era rules regarding affirmative action. President Obama believed race should be a factor in admissions as to maintain diversity in campuses across the nation. The new administration under Trump has rescinded these rules and race shall not be a part of the admissions process. This was during a controversial story regarding Harvard University and Asian students. “A highly anticipated case is pitting Harvard against Asian-American students who say one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions has systematically excluded some Asian-American applicants to maintain slots for students of other races. That case is clearly aimed at the Supreme Court.” This decision is essentially the reverse of what happened in the case between California and Bakke. The Trump administration decided that affirmative action was something unconstitutional and all races should have an equal chance in terms of admissions. Additionally, the case with Harvard and Asian students is different because instead of a white male it was a minority going against other minorities in a sense.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.