Moot Court: Bakke v Regents of University of California

Mr. Bakke was a prospect for medical school at the University of California Davis who made the claim that race was a factor in him not being admitted into the University's Medical school program.
Regents of the University of California v Bakke was a case disputing whether the admissions process at the Medical School of the University of California was constitutional or not. The ruling declared that using racial quotas in it’s admissions process was unconstitutional but using Affirmative Action was. Bakke claimed that the school’s admission process violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It’s important to note that Bakke was also older than most of the other medical school applicants in his pool, which was a fact that caused a separate debate within this case (McBride 2006).

In the moot court case, the side defending Mr. Bakke had two main points. The first was that Mr. Bakke had a 3.1 GPA while only students who had below a 2.5 GPA would be excluded from considering being admitted. According to the University, anyone with a GPA above a 2.5 would be given an interview. The second argument was that Bakke was a veteran which means he deserved a shot at medical school considering the grades he had and the time he spent serving our country.

The team defending UC Davis made the case that the affirmative action program is meant to integrate all cultures into the medical school, not just African Americans. Also, it was pointed out that Bakke was in his mid thirties in a time at which med schools practiced age discrimination. Bakke was not economically disadvantaged, making him not eligible for a special admissions program offered for all prospective students.