Which case involved race-conscious admissions and allowed narrowly tailored use of race?

Which case involved race-conscious admissions and allowed narrowly tailored use of race?

• A. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
• B. Loving v. Virginia
• C. Katzenbach v. Morgan
• D. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

Answer: (A)

Race-conscious admissions and narrowly tailored use of race is about whether a college can consider an applicant’s race as part of a holistic review to promote diversity, without using race as a rigid quota. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke addressed this directly. The Court struck down the medical school’s fixed quotas that reserved a set number of seats for minority applicants. But it also held that race could be one factor among many in admission decisions if used narrowly and as part of a holistic approach aimed at achieving diversity, not as a quota. This dual stance established that race-conscious consideration could be permissible under strict scrutiny, provided it is narrowly tailored and not a mechanical allocation of seats. For context, later decisions refined this framework, notably upholding the idea that race can play a role in admissions as part of a broader, individualized assessment, rather than through quotas. The other cases listed deal with different civil rights questions—interracial marriage, voting rights, and poll taxes—and do not involve race-conscious admissions.

Race-conscious admissions and narrowly tailored use of race is about whether a college can consider an applicant’s race as part of a holistic review to promote diversity, without using race as a rigid quota.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke addressed this directly. The Court struck down the medical school’s fixed quotas that reserved a set number of seats for minority applicants. But it also held that race could be one factor among many in admission decisions if used narrowly and as part of a holistic approach aimed at achieving diversity, not as a quota. This dual stance established that race-conscious consideration could be permissible under strict scrutiny, provided it is narrowly tailored and not a mechanical allocation of seats.

For context, later decisions refined this framework, notably upholding the idea that race can play a role in admissions as part of a broader, individualized assessment, rather than through quotas. The other cases listed deal with different civil rights questions—interracial marriage, voting rights, and poll taxes—and do not involve race-conscious admissions.