In
Bakke, 5 justices ruled for Bakke and against the University of California's racial quota. However, one of those 5 was Justice Powell, who in his opinion approved of a different system of admission at Harvard, which was not -- at least ostensibly -- a rigid quota, and which, Powell said, advanced the legitimate goal of "diversity." 4 justices would have upheld the University of California quota.
Ever since Bakke, universities have adopted systems of racial preference that were not as open as the University of California's quota, and which claimed to be aiming at Powell's goal of "diversity." Because Powell's was the deciding vote in Bakke, they often pretended his opinion was the opinion of the Supreme Court, which is not, strictly speaking, true.
Thankyou for clarifying all that, aristeides. I did recall that Powell was pivotal. What a mess that decision made! But it looks like the UM case will give the SC a clear shot at finally bringing constitutional clarity to this issue. No matter what they decide, I know very well that various cities, states and universities will violate the mandate in their determination to impose their concept of "social justice" on the rest of us. University of California's defiance of 209 is a case in point. So is Willie Brown's discriminatory contract/hiring policy in SF. So the fight will be probably be endless and a SC decision adverse to UM will only keep the honest people honest.