Board of Regents v. Bakke Mock Trial

The facts of this case are as follows; the University of California has a quota system, which falls under Affirmative Action. The Board of Regents is defending this policy in the sense that creating a diverse student body will promote student growth. Bakke, on the other hand, is challenging the quota system as violating his 14th amendment rights. Bakke is a white male, who has a 3.5 GPA and was denied admission to the University of California.

The Board of Regents used numerous arguments to defend the quota system. As for a historical argument, it was said that the point quota system was to provide minorities with the same opportunities as the majority. Another observation was that minority groups are still suffering from segregation, therefore the quota system should be considered okay. The legal argument began with stating the facts. The University of California has room for 100 seats a year, and they receive upwards of 3,000 applicants. There is no proof that Bakke's rejection was based on the racial quota; the admissions committee could have simply seen other applicants as more qualified. In order for Bakke to win this case, he would have to have proof, which he does not. The quota system provides blacks the opportunity for admission into the school. The ethical argument said that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the quota system, people should be okay with giving blacks the same opportunities as whites. The quota system may allow first-generation students to have education that they may not have access to otherwise. A school that has a diverse student body will bring all races together. Another argument made stated that the quota system should continue because it allows for students to grow. Similar to the last argument, it was mentioned that diversity will allow for a growth mindset for students - which is extremely important. It will allow students to broaden their ideas, as well as abolish their preconceptions of others.

As for Bakke, the first argument stated that less qualified applicants gaining admission based on being a minority will have a negative affect on future occupations. Bakke was in the 90th percentile for nearly every aspect of academics, and they argued that minorities most likely would not test as well. The ethical argument suggested that everyone should be treated equally, therefore there should be no quota system. Students with lower test scores being accepted just because of the quota system is incredibly unfair to those other students who work hard for exemplary grades. Superior grades and knowledge should be accepted, not just those of color. Another argument mentioned that the University of California reserving 60% for minorities is discriminating against the other 40%'s rights. The religious argument simply stated that seeking justice for Bakke is critical. Finally, the legal argument said that the Civil Rights Act made it illegal to discriminate, therefore Bakke should not have been denied acceptance. Being a diverse university does not mean being biased towards minorities. They commented that Bakke is more qualified, but being discriminated against because he is white. The argument ended with the bold statement that history will repeat itself if this continues, but in the opposite way

Both the Board of Regents and Bakke had interesting arguments, however the Court ruled in favor of the Board of Regents. They decided that any state may consider race as a factor of admissions to promote diversity. However, there must be other factors involved as well. Race can not be the only consideration. With this being said, the University of California did not break any laws.