- 1
.6 u a“ t . Kr“) J
flannwwfimmi...ifiwfihfifimnméfizs wfiafimgmgfifii ..
- 3... .1... £...fi¢.§tnbafiahmr§: -21....3
. u

     

.3. . ., . . xi). \{JPL.\. 7.x .
I. , , v r. ..
, . e 06.44%. g 1.51%. .1! n; :5}. k
x .1 x i 5 . .73... 5 . , .l\ .
3.1% , 111.... v 3. 1.. . 0. “NPR augusflvyk . .Kv.tlha)$
1\$\l¢1 . u? 1 v... :§§5
.- ‘nrfin. . i
. ¢ blsytnt.)

f)! 1.3.. .3 1 u .. . t . I. 1: . . u, .
Th! ”filly-L9 uvy‘lli. ‘2“!!! 0'0! . V i... x. . I , . ~ . v . .
hrp1owfl":fwg ...... {.1}; 7 . I .3 u 1.! If? 1 S ..
s. ,( I." C. "4' V. ' U A . I h « \. u
I . < .0 L... t . t . . . . t. . , t
. . u. v. 1 l , t 3 . x . .1 . é.
. v . . .g . 4 . . . t. .13.“. I. , , L. r: .
v t! . 1 . . .nv .. . .5 >1 7 J. 31 L. ~ 1 . 5:: 451.1127: 09
v o. a v. ~ . 7 . 1 s .. H. o 0.5 A. ‘v :2. . u Olfltjt £104 kn
I .1Q9 . l1 7 , t . . . 1.. t s. X... . . v; . O 2|.0H1slxflwbb- ..
« VII . ... .

s. 1‘. u... .. .. ..}!...,.:.. .. y . .
. v 13.0.... . \iiihifl , if”? ..1

            

- .t a
..z
. _ . . 532 x I , . .
. 1. .wm‘TI 1 .\ , at”. . \miéi ‘. 333%.?!“ .u‘... A... 5:117:61 .1172)... .Q.
. a Z. u%n&.%§hofi 3%...(513 ..\I.. . 21bi&l $503.3“... Lfiifiifinhflfidfifll‘tg: .
axon“... e... 338 l {1.3. fin.§..b¢i§$$¥fifiéu
3r .. . . «finnzhunfiiunwiéx
, v.25. 3L 2,3”..th
. 3‘5: .inrwnis. ”Luv. 1%“

         

   

                

  

. y
.z. .
.16

T
.51 3

   

\ t '
I71. A. t, .
.3. 9.92:5... . 41.. 1.110.. . . ,x . 2.... a.
I ttnuw . 9 ¢ . . v 5 a . .W‘dv .
1 >1 9Y7 than. WNW-cw” W35“? Viv g ~ I . ,II 4 a a , ....~ 5 _ 5 i 1 mm... \1, .i x ... In .I‘xx. .1115: .
.? 1 1 1: vv , .1 3 .. .35. fl 1 .. (NW5. 551.99.sz Eur
. a. . .. l. . @5933. hi. 3. 2. lafyfiunwuua
. t . ,1; 25.9“.5Wfipfldwflwu dunks? I JI‘. . .{dn .
.511: mm... )1! .
xLu adamwxanaaaci. 1.5% 3.1. t... ib§$§flfigflmflamfifififis .. an
. at. 1 . v: “4.31.13; . 3.“...3 . \
glad u x . v

\

1
A

Y.

     

            

        
      

               
   

     

2%
7 . w #5.!!! Yffikung : 1-
. 12.. . .. Efiygvfimfi§l Hairy... 6 . .saia z . . . .
. . . .nunu«u¥§rf.mvhb in... «km . . «L28. .. . . - 42. E Jr??? 5. .3 . .
.eiflqtnu: 0111’}... .aflewivfltal to! ! 707191 1311 . . v :. 1‘3!Q.u5$5¥5 .13.:11.) 3.. 1.3.51)... .353 3.2.10...” ad. ha; 0 . a v\ . ..
f.n.c§vdfiuyfihhflpflfi$. . iota... any. .. . .. v .. s filial and)...“ 3a.... 3...»... .fllfi fifififlumw .33.“. .5 “Huh. 7 . .. x
.1. Ikhnnrf‘ .07....taltcvveh .0 , 1.. l. (‘1‘ . i . . u. .. .. . .4... on). \. 1. .1 s, . _ . . . v 7 .
..va.fin.vo§lnfie¥3§.wk..v¢n§ .33. am.” .. than... e. .14.... H, X . .. i. a... Liflxufivfiqd mumzfixnoulfix .nflvkum H-333“... .. . ...
. u 174 TC . . . . . :1 i. .1; I . .
U§2?.¥§lfi%xr . r . .aa‘iufi. “.39? 9...».1 2.. “NH.“ i .. .imolp ~ arx..~ht~§ .uuhhtn. vi .1... .1 \Wfimmmfikifi . . . . . 4 »
“fifiinuunhafi. thiggufi. 1.2.waktg§ .....R.fi- .a .13... 1 . x . 3.2.5.... 2.. a). £95.... .aixv.efiqhfiuz.a§.w§§»fi, .. .
fiVili‘llid‘E 7!... .. 1:: 1.1V? .59 . \b!!!‘ .1 Shun-1.“. , \is I . TV to . . z 5:... .. . I 1 1 4
«.L‘Vvlvotuir‘txr 1 iiar‘tultvvh s. a. NM 1 3 3* 3 bay. 4 853...... . gin“. . 1
31!}...3l2.w»znuu Juan“... .1»: Lu“... . 1.. 83¢ . lmxéfigs . ,. 21.15.. .mm. 35 . 2. 24.3.3. . .5.
.it’t‘1Iv‘LNanv-wt .I' O. . . z .5... 73.4. , a. vb! 7. )1. all... .
..h...xvf.r}.z.n.flu§fr .352! .. : 3? 411...: 3.34... . 2.. beixhrWuunr . a .. x {.59 $.13? .{lflhfifls‘rx .. z
“11' , giivt-vv‘av§v lk’liv>v..7s»h.vg\?t.dh-V .: . 14L~913 us. Jx \).<.).a. 5.. 333%”.4. 1.135.. \ . . .1112. «.1 t. .5311!) ,
. . :{Evrvrlg .vvfifigghflmv. If 1.1.4..va . 1. v 31..“ .ibfisfinvfii :ufkibli . . . ax..."3......x.u.nmfin..au.u«5.z.<<ax.. a. .81. .
..t....q§¥!nfln§1%c..i "fig; a}... .... q. . n ,4 . sh? “RH. .. , v2}. , .. .. éofiupuu§§ 3LT§€s xix}; -
.. 52.1%. .H?§atmfinflvvn3 2.. 2n“! . .,. ha .. 118,68... 1...... av... : girsimsélu ivfifiv.§m~mmb§< 20%».313 x... .. t. . .. . .,
. 1" i . t . s. at u ...I\p . . , 11. \. ....(\\.¢9.. .1.) 1’31»... 19- } .1 , . ,
.. .t fia...3.id§.f..§¥ .nguumxéfl.i . . , 1.123%; s} 7 . 3;»?é.:.n{ah$a¥; a.» ..$....%. 38%.. . s... .. a
.v..:... . , INN... 3 in... I. a . 1 1.215.... .52.} EE‘) 33‘ . 2.. A , .flLIx , .5 .2653! a
.3 :16 Ir .39.- ! 2 s ‘1.\\ OR. 31.u\xr.:wvnv)h§\&)\fls$ \Lfltgi k‘ifixjin\13 $3.... 1 Sakai. 5.”)Iflgn ~45.) . i g.) g 311”."
x. .7 « .8111.“ .1. 1:31. T , . $ 63%“ shirt. :5“
21.1, flail

V.
o p ('0 v .6". «I? Hi)! . J . . .. .
Ehu‘.‘ at 3 ., . . 1:. , (c .1. 3.13:. .. 1‘1. 5... Ea. 1%. A?
I ‘7‘: ' unit . . . 1:1 21. .Z. . ., H 3.3.1.... .
II. V r . l . tic-rev... v! .5. .r . ggx\aazilfih§:zif~i ‘mz {Ushhwmmmalhr 1. 3115“ 2.33.12 : “11...?
I. it . xi .. Jl .Y‘i’l‘ . S»1~£§\\:\X\§I 1.11581h1.1\3b ‘8‘ N1!- i u). 1: of
v v.1. .. . . Ngfi.}§§.\7213.i..§357éiz.71 l. 23§bvhflflfihx .Kifivsghah . gas . 13‘.
y . Jag... . 9R3»... 3.4}. .3...:.o..1.zk..x:7.s 1&3»... ahvnhuwmbuwmtfi§§. 2.2 1...... .iflrfiififisb , ..
x1639§ s132b.3§414¢c11y. 1.91%... .wxfiw.§3>..?§ 3 s . , 16.}. 3.3» .2. 3....
\ \.n\n.3~.\.\l|) 31%.... . 37. 151503111 15, 2‘54‘1 SI. 1 \11‘1 1 5035.6 1, .‘V
gum... husfiflaéaiaiwshfi Hsflwgzr. sasawxflfimwfiu: A .8... 8. zmukirisvizi..§l .. . «.31.? 1.x.
. \s a x . . . . . gag. . .. 31h... . , 3...: K. 3 ..
5.. b9. .2... , Ellsfiz 1:51.... a... 5. . .3313??? Law... .fifillflmfl. . s #1.... ..
...s. .2: 2.1%...." . 1...... 2.... “5.2. az,\?&?i.?§§§afiinnabz.§hr .a .I . a. 9.. w
3 .. 132.4 ,,L¥a§n¢4s.2:2$i§§ . 71%... i V... . zunzhmh’
,lifi) . 33h? , t . 1:1 its»)?

                

\\
5W!“
UV 1.13:5“. i)! aifiaik‘
2‘2. digs gii is...
11% 5%.? Ziflagvuflilii.-Z‘.C.isx 11.4.1 .
Mr: 51“} ~.\ ‘1‘}!!! \ v .
1.. Egg? $x§1€§fi flung} . .
,1 F. . «unfit: as . .533; fins..§ .
)1). 3.113.... 3111.0. i)! . .1 J33 .
.1 V 14.. .hrf 2...... a... It. 45 a. 5531.1».
$111121! y . 1;i\§.3§ . . 1r
{fibfli‘JJIQVfi , 3333 .
r .1! final“: 1 xgxztghfi‘ .11. .
‘ . Q. v N h in. .1 V: . . a“ .
. 5.11.13qu Sara; . ..
. I: 8 091.1%. 3:63.31 13v \
33:4 3 .6... tr. fl (fightiéfluab grin“ . L......
\ £§$ . é\1\x usiiihi‘
.‘}i‘n§ 3““5 Nu.“ 5%“5 .‘1 ‘i‘u’. ‘EI‘ é
gm: 3’ . I‘ll L ( lé‘é;
1‘1 QCX‘ZIEI‘ ll\ ‘43 hl‘. AWN! in .. 1
. 3.2.... , .t. [11%; %I%%i§nfi .11. .E. 3:51 , . .
1% 1%. .éfihfl‘. 8.253.511: . sis-Alufiawiaxpwél . m . a . .,
‘I‘z\§3 \‘ll‘l‘hl‘ k. '1 “Ru-2% 2
. xiiié“ . 1)» \(«H i}.flnwi :3 a 01:??? . 6.5.0155 . st. 1 . :7.
. 2.1.}. g, .. like.-. .. _ A.-. t: (4
5x)... , .. 6 . A

. :1.
glue... 3.1:. ya a F2. $.31... . . .

..,.........- 23. $ 233.19....3. ..i;..£fififi§unu
. v...

    

. .. . . n. .
v... c» .95. . 0w.» .0. . Bi!!nvvu1.1rd.: [1.3.211 ,
III!‘!YV.I-‘:..n. ' . ' L1 .0? '1’." 11.11"]. .
. ... .111 .aili... ”Viv... pl... .cobt'hPQ-E 20: In“ 1
. . . _ .. wrung i. x... .28 .1... '34.: H1. .23»... I . .
‘02: u v a '3. um I “Huh!!!
0! f
.vr.‘u..vorlvvt;roaa.lmcemvzlvvv% (25...... 1451.1. in. .v
.o t 1. r; 1' inti‘t‘i I)“. a. r v
3.. 3:1‘39ztvxti 1.2313 . i. . .1.
. 35373.7 u IE ciavm
.1'01'I .l‘ '
s L. ivuzitzfl ”~11. E V! 1. wire“
3 .

. . . .A .
’I—Ir’v it" .‘t‘l’l" . . . N't
rt Zfifiau-‘Q‘Rl‘fmwhoflfihvirr.bhrfl $1. i.§u¢§flflfl§ .
H.113. 1. his? 331;: a . . k2 . . firi— iv ‘.
a ._ v.2! £52.: . $1 liggi,

 

   
      

       
 

  

       

                       

1""... slti kx Eittvi? ,
.ntlav a .2 1‘» iéflcfifiq

     

'71

      

             
       
 

  

only... 2 . .
«A .. ‘ti‘vflv‘f‘h‘i a , . g
“gifiuwflafib... . a 9D?! vvvv .. it}... ..6 klfid‘. 11X..L.i¢bltui’ll..u.?. .17?- Qi§§lmfl§ a .a . . 1): x. fill):
7... .. 11.5.17. vvnufvthTT vvinzib— \P'Vl’vi ii, It? . . .c’ . w. . . 121.3153)! .5. 311% . «3‘ 30-! ‘51! I
;§§I¢I‘§t§r§nlu .i . :th Eti‘ur’; . a , it‘lxfisggkvnfldulu undil\ , ‘13:! «all . u
. v {in .ifliii «5. 1.5.0.3.)??? if: .7 Int. ‘5‘ . 1 .
§7I.?\§It$~5.lvfiiififili‘hbini Err . .\ , ufi . flit). :31 gating; {£1}. 7
y .. >v¢xl§i¥29 . .. In :7 8 I . It?! 11%: éfiilltfixs 1-
. . . . 1013.6. 3.3!. . 7! n
g; m in . . \‘d’, 1 \
. \-
\

 
   

. g3f».rabvvl.+al$
.r . 2. \IA .1 ZitNvawOiV§|s§§ I .
v . .3- a but! (It:

 

. . . .
. v .
.P 7.2:“ gg 1 t, ‘Lb‘trvbndt,kflhl§¥rli
.. .. 3.2% Luanngunz. it... 3...: £0.05»? $35.
. . , 5.. L: .
. )3 i? i?r!¥i.v§nn%i.f .9111
grit-{ital fits-tun... i... v .73. .- 7 X]

h...‘ tflgt‘l‘
£1 YE... 97.5%.:ng Athuuttit 109.1...”
.iiifrlefévtltig’.

. :13;va 9..ll$¢p..k .1I..£X4£.c$ 7.56.).Iniififl

, . Sinhaégxéutl; £6.11: .
.3..- ...I....... :Ilclal...‘ Eéfzxt....§
P§.q§gs ”0.5.: 11.5131... ‘ “RN _ slug.» v '2 flirt
.1. rah EEL‘II lgviLrMn. _. .. ”Air.”
\ . tziliflgk‘:

[£351.

. .x..i§1§1&§§l;z it 3.
I. Itglki3.
. Ex 1.? . . ,, It , .
%X;§hgffiiflfivfii .R
hie

        

(thsr .

                  

y . h .
. A . I...
Eit.¥i§ith.¢tt§L . ......
11E... . iii. .. igfitfirikizu.35tt (gunners. Lrnfitlzt. .. . .tztnui. it.
E‘E‘EZ‘. rug... Sigh-Elfinti
. EPA KILL Q -g Lgd}l.hnuu)V-\fz\.\ ‘8 N
.

Uli‘vflx
.....
. .., .
y s \ , w? Ewart §¥§.i1§lzi¥lt£.t .v
4 . y I I1! IE.;.§ZL§.E.—ut?: .5 . . . . .. .
fii‘h‘..§h’t$f:lifin\ “Nova-r . fih‘utI‘FfiVQLiJfl-Hubfir5hétn;¥\v~hm.ur.&.1n.uo¢z.w.§k:vli§.
: .ltn ‘2: 3:41. i .1. h u v -22 I ~ L n‘ I - ny- ‘ ~ ‘ ‘Ei‘l’ttit - «If‘ . tut .
.. .t...» zfl..:fib...§.. Elmirazfinwsaz....i.¥s.fil.x.z.§.latéuuz tit... 4:??ng . {Eligthuhrzsrtutt Eli??? Istntt... srufiufif “12....uxt;u§1.t.ur.£:
. .. . . . 193:1. .iutafiia.i , t. if! $11!...
. ...a~:.q<\3¢o .. . v. vagiuwfiméozi . . .113“. t¢$3£né§0¢i¥lfix iii? Eiti.£tziitl$utkks\lahz
. . . .. ,.. .1: .. .13}. . . .

: . 3 .2. . a 3 . .3. ....3...!...¥i. . .5933»... ,. :2 31.1 .i»... PE-!€.K§E¢+&$E€EE§E. fanatttxtiltt it‘tfivfi. ...|tk1...s._.t
. , . . . #tQ-iésflt.1ufiw§”)§. Ldbaraéniihlhvls ol?o\LAL.s..as.nB\.

. u . y 1‘CW -“~.. . u . L Mililx‘l nit“.
. . v. a _ . . . .

           

    
    

 

THESIS

LIBRARY i
Michigan State
University f?

L...“ 7.," v-‘YQ-n-fl-V'V"

  
   

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
CHANGES IN ADMISSIONS POLICIES AT MEDICAL

SCHOOLS BEFORE AND AFTER THE

BAKKE DECISION
presented by

 

James Andrew Berlowe

has been accepted towards fulfillment
ofthe requirements for

Doctorate degree in- Philosophy

/

, NVVVV‘MH‘ @

Major professor

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 042771

 

 

OVERDUE FINES:
25¢ per day per item

RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS:

Place in book return to remove
charge from circulation records

4 43141300412001
Lyme;
249 3

(Pi-V-
£1.45: .'.’.}:' ,

WY “it:

 

m9”

 

$39.
.444 415.4

7‘ hr’rc__‘_.‘_ 4i

 

 

CHANGES IN ADMISSIONS POLICIES AT MEDICAL
SCHOOLS BEFORE AND AFTER THE

BAKKE DECISION

BY

James Andrew Berlowe

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Curriculum

1982

ABSTRACT

CHANGES IN ADMISSIONS POLICIES AT MEDICAL
SCHOOLS BEFORE AND AFTER THE
BAKKE DECISION

BY

James Andrew Berlowe

The purpose of this dissertation was to determine
whether changes in admissions policies at medical schools
were implemented subsequent to the U.S. Supreme Court

decision, Regents of University of California v. Bakke,

 

98 S.C. 2733, 1978. The central theme of the underrepre—
sentation of minority students at medical schools is pre-
sented, analyzed, and discussed in light of published
commentary and research.

Admissions policies were examined in 1976 and
1981-82 to determine if there had been any changes in
admissions policies between the times before and after
the ggggg decision. Nonpublic explicit policy and implicit
policy are very difficult to research on a large-scale
basis. However, the researcher found it possible to study
the explicit public policies of seven medical schools prior
to and subsequent to the ggggg decision. The researcher

may conclude with regard to explicit public policy, seven

James Andrew Berlowe

medical schools have not changed their admissions poli-
cies prior to and subsequent to the Eagfig decision. With
regard to explicit nonpublic policy and implicit policy,
the researcher cannot conclude that there have been any

changes prior to and subsquent to the Bakke decision.

DEDICATION

To my mother and father, Dr. and Mrs. M. L.
Berlowe, who gave--and give so much.
To Midge Cross who gave her love and support

during the final stages of the dissertation.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The researcher has profited greatly from visions

of Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, Dr. Bruce
Floden, and Dr. Edward Duane. The
men has been of great value.

The researcher is grateful
who typed the rough drafts and the

thankless, frugal adventure.

Miller, Dr. Robert

advice afthese gentle—

to Mrs. Nancy Heath

final manuscript——a

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . Vii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . 6
Research Questions . . . . . . . 6
Need for the Study . . . . . . . 7
Methodology . . . . . . . . . 8
Format of the Study . . . . . . . 8
Rationale for the Study . . . . . . 10
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . 12
Introduction . . . . . . . . . 12
Glossary of Terms . . . . . l3
Regents of University of California v.
Bakke, 98 S.Ct. 2733,1978 . . . . 16
Review of Related Literature . . . . 37
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 44
III. PRESENT STATUS OF ADMISSIONS POLICIES AT
MEDICAL SCHOOLS: STATUS OF MINORITY
REPRESENTATION . . . . . . . . . 47
Introduction . . . . . . . 47
Present Status of Admissions Policies
at Medical Schools . . . . . . . 49
Minority Representation in Medical
Schools . . . . . . . . . . 60
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 65
IV. DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Method . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Analysis of Documents . . . . . . 72
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 78

iv

Chapter Page

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . 79
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . 80
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 81
Concluding Observations for Discussion . 83
Implications for Further Research . . 84

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

LIST OF TABLES

Disposition of various justices in the

Bakke decision . . . . . . . . . .

Subjects required by 10 or more U.S.
medical schools for 1982-83 . . . .

Undergraduate grades of first-year U.S.
medical students 1976-77 through 1978-80 .

Ranking by 107 medical schools of the
importance of selection factors in the
student admission process . . . . . .

Minority student information by individual
U.S. medical schools . . . .

vi

Page

46

50

52

58

93

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix
A. Amici Briefs in the Bakke Case . . .

B. Minority Student Information by Individual
U.S. Medical Schools . . . . .

C. Letter to 126 Medical Schools . . . .

D. AMCAS Application for 1982-83 Entering
Class . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Page

87

92

99

101

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Our nation was founded on the principle that "all
men are created equal." Yet, candor requires acknowledg-
ment that the Framers of our Constitution openly compro—
mised a principle of equality with its antithesis: slavery.

The Fourteenth Amendment, the embodiment in the
Constitution of our belief in human equality, has been
the law of our land for more than half of its 200 years.

Little in the way of legislation and litigation
followed until the advent of the Civil Rights Movement
in the early 19605. Since that time, there has been more
litigation and legislation in the area of higher education.

Much of the litigation has dealt with cases con-
cerning minorities. In two important cases,however, the
courts have dealt with the matter of reverse discrimina-

tion. The first of these cases was DeFunis v. Odegaard,

 

416 U.S. 312 (1974) and the second was Regents of the Uni-

 

versity of California v. Bakke, 98 S. Ct. 2733 (1978).

 

In the case of DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312

 

(1974), reverse discrimination in admissions to university

programs was first brought to national attention with the

1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.1 This case involved an
action brought by a white male who had been denied admis—
sion into the University of Washington Law School, which
had a special admission procedure for minority group
students. The rejected applicant, DeFunis, brought suit
claiming this constituted discrimination against him
because he was a member of a non-minority group. The court
finally ruled that the case was moot since the plaintiff
was admitted under a special court order pending the final
decision in the case and was ready for graduation by the
time the decision was handed down.

In spite of the fact that the court avoided a
direct ruling on the issue of reverse discrimination in
the DeFunis case, an important dissenting opinion was
written by Justice Douglas which Clearly framed the
issue.2 He argued that the use of racial classifications
for admissions programs violates the equal—protection
clause and cannot be justified by affirmative action goals.
Specifically, he asserted that the procedure of establish-
ing one threshold score for white applicants and a lower

threshold score for minority applicants is unconstitutional.

 

lDeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974).

2A thorough analysis of Justice Douglas' response
is provided by Fred M. Hechinger, "The Case Against Prefer-
ential Quotas: Justice Douglas' Dissent in the DeFunis
Case," NOLPE School Law Review 4 (Fall 1974): 8—11.

 

 

Thus, in Justice Douglas' view, it is as unconstitutional
to permit positive or preferential racial discrimination

as it is to permit negative racial discrimination.

Indeed, he advocated an admissions system that does not
rely on test scores alone, but considers other criteria
such as professional recommendations and an over-all eval-
uation of the educational experience of the applicant which
would suggest potential success in the academic program

in question.3

The second case, Regents of the University of

 

California v. Bakke, 98 S. Ct. 2733 (1978) was a case in

 

which the Supreme Court did reach a decision; however, this
decision was a compromise decision.

In 1978 the Supreme Court decided its first case
involving the question whether a benefit can be offered
only to members of defined minority groups when the public
institution conferring the benefit has no history of
de jurg segregative policies or other discrimination
against members of those groups. In the widely publicized
gahge case the operative facts were that the campus of the
University of California at Davis had set aside 16 of 100
seats in its entering medical school class specifically

for "Blacks," "Chicanos," "Asians," and "American

 

3DeFunis (1974), Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice
William 0. Douglas.

Indians."4

There was a separate admissions program for
these groups, characterized as "disadvantaged" one year
(with no formal definition of the term) and as "minority
groups" the rest. Bakke was a white applicant who, after
he was not admitted on either occasion, sued under the
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on a
claim of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court of
California found the program to be unconstitutional
because it considered race, and ordered Bakke admitted
(after the University conceded it could not prove that
Bakke would not have been admitted in the absence of the
special program).

The Supreme Court of the United States held that
the specific program was illegal and that Bakke must be
admitted, but that consideration of race per s3 was not
constitutionally forbidden in such a situation.5 These
conclusions were not supported as a single Opinion of the
Court. Four Justices found that Bakke was unlawfully
excluded in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. Justice Powell, who cast the fifth vote for

Bakke's admission, said that there also was a constitutional

infirmity in the California plan--namely, the fact that

 

4Regents of the University of California v. Bakke,
98 S. Ct. 2733 (1978).

5438 U.S. at 356, 98 s. Ct. at 2782.

members of the Specified minorities could compete for the
whole 100 seats, whereas whites could only compete for
only 84 seats. Justice Powell stated, however, that there
was no consitutional provision for considering race or
ethnic origin as one of a number of factors to be con-
sidered in an admissions program because a university's
quest for a diverse student body can be considered of
paramount importance in the fulfillment of its mission.6
The first bloc of four Justices said nothing about "race
as one factor," taking the position that the case did not
call for a discussion of that matter because race was

the only factor in selecting those for the 16 "minority
seats."

In judging the constitutionality of affirmative
action programs in colleges and universities, a distinc-
tion must be drawn between two basic methods. One method
would involve setting a quota for a specific number of
places for minority members and specific number for non-
minority members. Alternatively, separate standards
may be given preferential treatment for minority members

without the use of a quota.7

 

698 s. Ct. at 2761.

7This was the basic argument in which the Supreme
Court answered its decision in Regents of the University
of California v. Bakke, 98 S. Ct. 2733 (1978).

 

 

 

 

 

The Bakke decision, by virtue of the fact that
it was a compromise decision, left many institutions

unclear about its ramifications.

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of this study is to determine whether
professional schools in the area of medicine have changed
their statements on admissions policies since the time
of the ggggg decision, to determine what those changes
have been, and the extent to which those changes conform

to the intent of the Supreme Court decision.

Research Questions

 

In order to facilitate the development of the
study, the researcher has formulated the following
research questions:

1. From the gaggg decision, it may be implied
that medical schools may no longer employ two or more
track systems of admissions. The researcher will attempt
to determine whether medical schools currently comply in
this area.

2. From the agggg decision, it may be implied
that medical schools may no longer employ a quota system.
The researcher will attempt to determine if this is the

case.

3. In View of the Court's comments on the case,
it would seem that the concept of social justice is not a
valid argument for the admission of minority students, but
rather the concept of educational diversity as a more
valid reason for the admission of minorities. The
researcher will examine the medical school admission
materials to determine whether this is reflected in

admissions policies.

Further, it is anticipated that there may be some
differences in the medical schools with respect to public
versus private, geographical locations, and prestige.

The researcher will look at the admissions materials in

terms of the above variables.

Need for the Study

 

A review of the literature to date has determined
that no comprehensive study has been made which would
indicate what changes have been made in statements on
admissions policies by professional schools since the
time of the gakke decision.

While it cannot be assumed that there is a direct
cause and effect relationship between the Bakke decision
and revised policies on admissions, it is reasonable to
believe that professional schools would analyze their
admissions policies as a result of the decision. It is

important to determine what changes, if any, have been

 

made to determine to what extent policies as currently
stated conform to the implications of the Supreme Court

decision.

Methodology

 

The researcher requested admissions materials
form all 126 United States medical schools for 1976 which
is two years prior to the E2332 decision and admissions
materials for the current year 1980—81. The materials
requested were as follows: catalogues from 1976 and 1980-
81; admissions forms; policy statements on admissions and
any other information which is sent to applicants. The
researcher will analyze these materials. Finally, the
researcher will determine whether the 1980-81 policies
conform with the intent of the Supreme Court decision as
previously analyzed.

The researcher recognizes it may be determined
that some policies as stated in the catalogues in 1976
may have already conformed with the intent of the Supreme
Court decision. Should this be the case, this will be

reported in the study.

Format of the Study

 

The dissertation is organized into five chapters.
The first chapter consists of an introduction, including

the purpose and need for the study. The second chapter

consists of two parts: the first is an historical review
of the Eakke decision and an analysis of the implications
of that decision on admission policies, while the second
is a review of the literature.

The third chapter will be an analysis of the
present status of admissions policies at medical schools
and the present status of minority representation. The
fourth chapter will consist of an analysis of admissions
policies in medical schools as determined by a review of
medical school catalogues in 1976 and 1981-82, an analy-
sis of correspondence with the medical schools and a
review of related materials submitted to the researcher
dealing with medical school admissions policy. The
results <1f this analysis also appear in the fourth
chapter.

Finally, the fifth chapter will consist of a sum-
mary of the above analysis, together with conclusions
which can be made from the study and implications for
further research.

The dissertation is a study of the relationship
between the gakke decision and medical school admissions
policies before and after that case was decided by the

United States Supreme Court.

10

Rationale for the Study

 

The rationale for the dissertation was to examine
the United States Supreme Court decision and review three
types of admissions policies that medical schools may have
employed. The researcher realized early in the study
that admissions decisions may or may not be shared by all
members of an admissions committee and that policy may be
unspoken or spoken only sub-rosa.

Since the Bakke decision, there is some reason
to believe that admissions policies may have changed.
Prior to the decision, medical schools did not have a
quota system and since that was what the Bakke case said
was unconstitutional, and that consideration of race was
constitutional in other formats, nothing had to be
changed.

The researcher recognized this point and determined
what impact, if any, the Bakke decision has had on admis-
sions policies of medical schools distinguishing three
different kinds of policies. The researcher had to care—
fully examine the admissions process and the kinds of
considerations that were used in making admissions
decisions.

A final consideration for writing the dissertation
was that in reviewing the United States Supreme Court

decision, five members of the Supreme Court had declared

 

11

legal and constitutional, and none had declared illegal or
unconstitutional the consideration of race in selecting
students—-undergraduate, graduate, or professional. This
conflict was reflected in the decision which gave every
appearance of a political compromise. It is important

to note throughout Chapter II and the whole dissertation
that the decision was narrowly drawn on the use of race in

admissions.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

 

When the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978 finally dealt

with reverse discrimination in the Regents of University

 

of California V. Bakke, 98 S. Ct. 2733, 1978, it handed

 

down a split decision. By a 5-4 vote, the Court ruled
that state universities may not set aside a fixed quota
of seats in each class for minority group members, denying
white applicants the opportunity to compete for those
places. At the same time, a different five-justice major—
ity held that it is constitutionally permissible for
admissions officers to consider race as one of the com-
plex factors that determine which applicant is accepted
and which is rejected.

This chapter consists of two parts: the first

is the case analysis of the Regents of University of

 

California v. Bakke, 98 S. Ct. 2733, in which a 5-4 deci-

 

sion was awarded to the plaintiff, Allan Bakke. The

second consists of a review of related literature.

12

l3

Glossary of Terms1

 

In conducting this study, the following terms
have been used and are designed to assist the reader in
better interpreting the Bakke decision and the language
of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Amicus curiae: (plural: amici curiae). Latin

 

for "friend of the court." An amicus curiae brief is one

 

accepted by the court from a non-party to the case, but a
party deemed to have a legitimate interest in the dispute,
with aa need to get its views before the court.

Benign race classification: Constitutional law

 

doctrine, supported by many school desegregation and
employment cases, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment
allows race classifications when promotive of constructive
and rational ends, especially in an effort to combat
racism.

Certiorari, writ of: An order from a higher court

 

to a lower court demanding to see the record in a given
case for purposes of review. This is a discretionary means
whereby the United States Supreme Court reviews decisions
of lower courts, when there is deemed to be a significant
federal or constitutional issue in dispute. (In most

cases, certiorari is denied.)

 

 

lIvor Kraft, DeFunis v. Odeggard: Race, Merit,
and the Fourteenth Amendment, uncommon lawyers workshOp,
Sacramento, California, 1976. Glossary of Terms, pp.
197-207.

 

14

Color-blind: The notion that the Constitution is

 

or ought to be seen as being totally disinterested in race
or ethnicity. As a matter of historical fact, however,
the Constitution was argued about and drawn up with close
and painstaking attention to race, and cannot be under-
stood if one does not confront the role of racism and
slavery in American culture.

Compelling state interest: Aspect of "equal pro—

 

tection" doctrine. When a law classified according to a
"suspect criterion" (race, for example) it may be able to
pass muster if it can be shown as essential in promoting
a compelling need of government, and no other way of
classifying is seen as being able to meet that important
need.

Equal protection clause: The words stating that

 

no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws" in the Fourteenth Amend-
ment to the United States Constitution.

Prima facie: Evidence of some sort that is satis-

 

factory enough or convincing enough at first impression to
suggest that the case that one wants to make stands a good
chance of actually being made. Thus, the case or action
should be allowed to go forward-—at least until a point is
reached where subsequent evidence rebuts the "first impres-

sion" evidence.

15

Race per se.‘ Constitutional law term. Refers to

 

the controversial, and probably incorrect theory, that the
Fourteenth Amendment automatically prohibits any race
classifications, even when for ostensibly or actually
benign purposes.

"Reverse discrimination": The View that preferen-

 

tial treatment for minorities in an effort to combat racism
is a form of unfair (and by implication, illegal) discrim-
ination against whites.

Strict scrutiny: Aspect of "equal protection"

 

doctrine. When laws classify according to vital or
crucial individual rights, they are said to require a
rigorous and demanding level of scrutiny by reviewing
courts, and they must be struck down if they fail to pass
this strict standard.

Suspect criterion: Aspect of "equal protection"

 

doctrine. When a law uses such classifications as race

or nationality or religion, this is said to trigger the
"strict scrutiny" test, the theory being that such suspect
criteria (race, etc.) are particularly susceptible of being
abused, misinterpreted, or unequally applied.

Two-tier test: Aspect of "equal protection"

 

doctrine. The United States Supreme Court is said to
apply a strict or searching test to those laws which use

such classifications as race, alienage, religion, whereas

16

the Court uses a more permissive or deferential method of
review when the classification involves other interests,
said to be less crucial or potentially discriminatory,

such as economic regulation. This two-tier test approach

 

is thought by some to be a fiction in actual practice.

Regents of University of California
v. Bakke, 98 S. Ct. 2733, 1978

 

 

The medical School of the University of California
at Davis opened in 1968 with an entering class of 50
students. In 1971 the size of the entering class was
increased to 100 students, a level at which it remains.
The first class contained three Asians, but no blacks,
no Mexican—Americans, and no American Indians. Over the
next two years, the faculty devised a special admissions
program.2

Under the regular admissions procedure, candi-
dates whose overall undergraduate grade point level fell
below 2.5 on a scale of 4.0 were summarily rejected. About
one out of six applicants with grade point averages above
2.5 was invited for a personal interview and each candidate
was rated on a scale of l to 100. The rating embraced the
interviewer's summaries, the candidate's overall grade point

average, grade point average in science courses and scores

 

2William B. Lockhart, Yale Kamisar, and Jesse H.
Choper, Constitutional Law, 5th ed. (St. Paul, Minn.:
West Publishing Co., 1980), p. 1336.

 

17

on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT), letters of
recommendation, extracurricular activities and other bio-
graphical data. The ratings were added together to
arrive at each candidate‘s "benchmark" score. Since five
committee members rated each candidate in 1973, a perfect
score was 500; in 1974 six members rated each candidate
so that a perfect score was 600. The full committee then
reviewed the file and scores of each applicant and made
offers of admission. The chairman was responsible for
placing names on the waiting list. They were not placed
in strict numerical order; instead, the chairman had dis-
cretion to include persons with "special skills."3
The special admissions program operated with a
separate committee, a majority of whom were members of
minority groups. On the 1973 application form, candidates
were asked to indicate whether they wished to be con-
sidered as "economically and/or educationally disad—
vantaged" applicants; on the 1974 form the question
was whether they wished to be considered as members of a
"minority group," which the medical school apparently
viewed as "Blacks," "Chicanos," "Asians," and "American
Indians." No formal definition of "disadvantage" was ever

produced, but the chairman of the special committee

screened each application to see whether it reflected

 

3Ibid., p. 1336.

18

economic or educational deprivation.4 Having passed this
initial hurdle, the applications then were rated by the
special committee in a fashion similar to that used by
the general admissions committee, except that special
candidates did not have to meet the 2.5 grade point aver-
age cut-off applied to regular applicants. About one-
fifth of the total number of special applicants were
invited for interviews in 1973 and 1974 and the special
committee assigned each special applicant a benchmark
score. The special committee then presented its top choices
to the general admissions committee. In 1973 and 1974 when
the class size had doubled to 100, the prescribed number
of special admissions also doubled, to 16.5

From the year of the increase in class size--197l--
through 19744the special program resulted in the admis-
sion of 21 Black students, 30 Mexican-Americans, and 12
Asians for a total of 63 minority students. Over the same
period, the regular admissions program produced one black,

six Mexican—Americans, and 37 Asians, for a total of 44

minority students. Although disadvantaged whites applied

 

4The chairman normally checked to see if, among
other things, the applicant had been granted a waiver of
the school's application fee, which required a means test;
whether the applicant had worked during college or inter-
rupted his education to support himself or his family; and
whether the applicant was a member of a minority group,
Ibid., p. 1336.

5Ibid., p. 1337.

19

to the special program in large numbers, none received an
offer of admissions through that process. Indeed, in 1974,
at least, the special committee explicitly considered only
"disadvantaged" special applicants who were members of one
of the designated minority groups.6
Allan Bakke applied to the Davis Medical SchOol
in both 1973 and 1974. In 1973 deSpite a strong bench—
mark score of 468 out of 500, Bakke was rejected. In 1974
his faculty interviewer was Dr. Lowrey to whom he had
written in protest of the special admissions program.
Dr. Lowrey found Bakke "rather limited in his approach"
to the problems of the medical profession and found dis-
turbing Bakke's "very definite opinions which were based
more on his personal viewpoints than upon a study of the
total problem." Dr. Lowrey gave Bakke the lowest of his
six ratings, an 86; his total was 549 out of 600. Again,
Bakke's application was rejected. In neither year did
the chairman of the admissions committee, Dr. Lowrey,
exercise his discretion to place Bakke on the waiting
list. In both years, applicants were admitted under the

special program with grade point averages, MCAT scores,

 

6Ibid., p. 1337.

20

and benchmark scores significantly lower than were Bakke's
scores.7

There were 2,644 applicants for the 1973 entering
class and 3,737 for the 1974 class. Only 100 places were
available each year, of which 16 were filled under the
special admissions program. Applicants for the remaining
84 places were chosen by recourse to the normal admissions

8
process.

 

7The following table compares Bakke's science grade
point average, overall grade point average, and MCAT Scores
with the average scores of regular admittees and of spe-
cial admittees in both 1973 and 1974:

Class Entering in 1973

 

MCAT (Percentiles)

 

 

 

 

SGPA OPGA Verbal Quaftl' Science Gen
tative Infor.
Bakke 3.44 3.51 96 94 97 72
Average of Regular Admittees 3.51 3.49 81 76 83 69
Average of Special Admittees 2.62 2.88 46 24 35 33
Class Entering in 1974
Bakke 3.44 3.51 96 94 97 72
Average of Regular Admittees 3.36 3.29 69 67 82 72
Average of Special Admittees 2.42 2.62 34 3O 37 18

 

Applicants admitted under the special program also
had benchmark scores significantly lower than many students,
including Bakke, rejected under the general admissions pro-
gram, even though the special rating system apparently gave
credit for overcoming "disadvantage." Ibid.

8The determination that students would be admitted
under the special program was made by a resolution of the
faculty of the medical school. Whether that figure was
randomly selected, or has some rationale, is not revealed
by the evidence. Bakke v. Regents of the University of
California 553 P.2d., 1152.

 

 

 

21

At the heart of Bakke's complaint before the
Supreme Court was his contention that he qualified for
admission but that he was denied admission solely because
he was a member of the Caucasion race. Bakke thus alleged
that he had been denied "equal protection of the laws"
under the Fourteenth Admendment, as the special admis-
sions programs for minorities had applied separate pref-
erential admissions standards resulting in less qualified
persons being admitted.9

The trial court agreed to a point. It found that
Bakke was entitled to have his application evaluated with—
out regard to his race or the race of any other applicant
but refused to order the University to admit him since
the court determined that he would not have been selected
even if there had been no special program for minorities.
The result was plainly unsatisfactory to both plaintiff
and defendant. Bakke was left with a hollow victory, and
the University's special admission program was in serious
jeopardy. Both sides in the dispute appealed--the Uni-
versity appealed the first part of the trial court's order

while Bakke appealed the second part.10

 

9Thompson Powers, Jane McGrew, "The Bakke Case.
Its More Remarkable for What It Doesn't Do than for
Anything it Does," Legal Times of Washington (Monday,
July 31, 1978), p. 11.

10

 

Ibid., p. 12.

 

22

Customarily, the case would have been heard on
appeal in a state court of appeal, but as California
Supreme Court Justice Stanley Mosk explained in the
California Supreme Court decision: "We transferred the
cause directly here, prior to a decision in the Court of
Appeal, becauseof the importance of the issues involved."11

The subsequent California Supreme Court decision,
although the Court treated the case as applicable only
to education, seemed to be a sweeping and stunning set—
back for affirmative action in general, and preferential
admissions procedures in professional schools, in par—
ticular. In a near unanimous decision, splitting only
6:1, perhaps the most prestigious state court in the
country rejected the Davis Medical School procedure by
affirming the lower court's finding that its Special
admission program was invalid. In striking down the
special admissions program the Court stated:

To uphold the University would call for the sacri—
fice of principle for the sake of dubious expediency
and would represent a retreat in the struggle to
assume that each man and woman shall be judged on
the basis of individual merit alone, a struggle
which has only lately achieved success in removing
legal barriers to racial equality. The safest
course, the one most consistent with the funda-
mental interests of all races and with the design

of the constitution is to hold, as we do, that
the special admission program is unconstitutional

 

llBakke v. Regents of the University of California,
553 P. 2d, 1152. Declaring that the University could not
take race into account in making admissions decisions, the
trial.courthe1d the challenged program in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment, the State Constituion, and Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

23

because it violates the rights guaranteed to the
majority by the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Con-
stitution.12

The Court also reversed the trial court's ruling
that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff
to demonstrate that he would have been admitted
to the 1973 or 1974 entering class in the absence
of the invalid preferences. The Court's reason-
ing was the since Bakke had successfully demon-
strated the University's unconstitutional dis-
crimination against him that the burden of proof
had then shifted to the University. However,
the Court remanded this part of the case to the
trial court to determine under the proper burden
of proof whether Bakke would have been admitted
absent the Special admissions program.l3

When the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari

 

in their consideration of the California decision, Justice
Powell joined four brethren—-Chief Justice Burger and
Justices Stevens, Stewart and Rehnquist-—to declare the
Davis Medical School's admissions program in violation of
Title VI and the Fourteenth Amendment and to require
Bakke's admission to school. Then Powell joined the

other four justices--Brennan, White, Marshall and

 

12Ibid., p. 1171.

13However, when the University later conceded that
it could not meet the burden of proving that Bakke would
have been rejected regardless of the special admissions
program, the trial court entered an order directing his
admission to the school. At this point, the U.S. Supreme
Court, on application of the University, intervened by
staying the order until a petition for certiorari could
be filed.

 

24

Blackmun--to concede that race could be a proper factor

. . . . . . 14
to con51der 1n adm1551ons polic1es.

Justice Powell began by pointing out that the
interpretation of Title VI would be controlled as a con-
stitutional issue:

Examination of the voluminous legislative history
of Title VI reveals a congressional intent to halt
federal funding of entities that violate a pro-
hibition of racial discrimination similar to that
of the Constitution. . . . Thus, Title VI must be
held to proscribe only those racial classifications
that would violate the equal protection
clause. . .

Next, Justice IKmmflJ. provided a revealing clue as

to the final outcome:

The guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment extend

to persons. Its language is explicit: "No state
shall . . . deny to any person within its juris-
diction the equal protection of the laws." . . .

The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one
thing when applied to a person of another color.
If both are not accorded the same protection,
then it is not equal. . . . It is far too late to
argue that the guarantee of equal protection to
all persons permits the recognition of Special
wards entitled to a degree of protection greater
than that accorded others.

 

14More precisely, the Court split into three groups:
Stevens, Stewart, Rehnquist and Burger, who argued that
the Davis special admissions program violated Title VI:
Brennan, White, Marshall and Blackmun, who contended that
the Special admissions program was legitimate because
race is a proper factor to consider; and finally Powell,
who agreed with the first group that the admissions pro-
gram was invalid and agreed with the second group on the
point that race is a permissible factor under both Title
VI and the Fourteenth Amendment.

1598 s. Ct. at 2745, 2748.

l6Ibid., at 2748, 2751.

25

The University of California, however, claimed
that Bakke's exclusion from medical school subjected him
to no stamp of inferiority; that is, the classification
was "benign" rather than "invidious" and therefore asserted
that the program was constitutional. Nonetheless, Powell
was disinclined to accept either the rational basis test
or a middle standard of review simply because the classifi—
cation 1acked "individousness." Instead, he found the
University rationale unsupportable and thus turned toward
the "strict scrutiny" approach:

Petitioner [The University of California] urges
us to adopt for the first time a more lenient
view of the equal protection clause and hold
that discrimination against members of the white
"majority" cannot be suspect if its purpose can
be characterized as "benign." . . .1

These individuals are likely to find little com—
fort in the notion that the deprivation they are
asked to endure is merely the price of membership
in the dominant majority and that its imposition
is inspired by the supposedly benign purpose of
aiding others.

Moreover, there are serious problems with the

idea of preference itself. First, it may not
always be clear that a so-called preference is

in fact benign. . . . Second, preferential pro-
grams may only reinforce common stereotypes hold-
ing that certain groups are unable to achieve
success without special protection based on a
factor having no relationship to individual

worth. . . . Third, there is a measure of inequity
in forcing innocent persons in respondent's
[Bakke's] position to bear the burdens of redress-
ing grievances not of their making.

 

171b1d., pp. 2750-2751.
181b1d., p. 2751, footnote 34.
19Ibid., pp. 2752-2753.

26

Another defect in the special program was its
similarity to historically suspect quota systems in "that

white applicants could not compete for the 16 places

20

reserved solely" for minorities. "Whether this limita-

tion is described as a quota or a goal, it is a line drawn
on the basis of race and ethnic status."21 Hence, Powell
recognized serious, in fact fatal, constitutional questions
in plans that used quota systems irrespective of qualifica—

tions.

Nevertheless, [the University] argues that the
[California Supreme Court] erred in applying strict
scrutiny in the special admissions programs because
white males, such as [Bakke], are not a "discrete
and insular minority" requiring extraordinary pro-
tection fromtflmamajoritarian political process.

. . . This rationale, however, has never been
invoked as a prerequisite to subjecting racial or
ethnic distinctions to strict scrutiny. Nor has
this Court held that discreteness and insularity
constitute necessary preconditions to a holding
that a particular classification is invidious. 2

Justice Powell, in fact, flatly refuted the posi—
tion that only discrimination against minorities was
suspect and therefore invidious, since any "denial to

innocent persons of equal rights and Opportunities may

 

20Ibid., p. 2748, footnote 26.

ZlIbid., at 2748.

22Thus, the University's position was that strict
scrutiny Should be applied only to those classifications
designed to exclude, disadvantage, or stigmatize "discrete
and insular minorities." Also, according to the dissent--
Justices Brennan, White, Marshall and Blackmun--the notion
of "stigma" is the crucial element in analyzing racial
classifications. Ibid., p. 2785.

27

outrage those so deprived and therefore may be perceived

23

as invidious." Even though the motives behind a policy

using racial criteria might be socially worthy, "racial
and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently sus-

pect and thus call for the most exacting judicial exam-

ination."24 Therefore, Powell rejected the University's

assertion that "benign" classifications should be dis—
tinguished becauserubabsolute deprivation is imposed on
the majority class, or because racial classifications
might be used remedially.

Disparate constitutional tolerance of such classifi-
cations well may serve to exacerbate racial and
ethnic antagonisms rather than alleviate them. . . .
Also, the mutability of a constitutional principle,
based upon shifting political and social judgments,
undermines the chances for consistent application

of the Constitution for one generation to the next,
a critical factor of its coherent interpretation.

. . . Political judgments regarding the necessity
for the particular classification may be weighed

in the constitutional balance . . . but the standard
of justification [strict scrutiny] will remain the
same.

Thus, "when a classification denies an individual
opportunities cu: benefits enjoyed by others solely
because of his race or ethnic background, it must be
regarded as suspect," and strict scrutiny applies. The
most difficult inquiry mandated by the strict scrutiny

standard is that regarding a "compelling state interest."

 

23Ibid., p. 2751, footnote 34.

24Ibid., p. 2749.

251bid., p. 2753.

28

At this point, however, Powell seemed to suggest a reduced
or middle-tiered approach: "a State must show that its
purpose of interest is substantial, and that its use of
the classification is necessary to the accomplishment of
its purpose or the safeguarding of its interests."26 He
also indicated that the two—track admissions program is
impermissible in the absence of appropriate "judicial,
legislative or administrative findings of constitutional
or statutory violations,"27 which, despite the problem of
"shifting political and social judgements," opens the
possibility for schools to turn to the political process
(e.g., state legislatures or civil rights commissions) for
the necessary findings and tailoring of remedies.28
Justice Powell found that the attainment of a
diverse student body related to "academic freedom," which
in turn was related to the guarantees of the first amend—
ment.29 Because this interest embodied a value of inde-
pendent Constitutional importance, it would be considered
compelling by the Justice under some circumstances. In

graduate and professional schools, as well as under-

graduate colleges, a faculty could attempt to insure that

 

26Ibid., pp. 2756-2757.
2

7Ibid., p. 2758.

28

Ibid., p. 2761.

2998 s. Ct. at 2760-61 (Powell, J.).

29

students and teachers would be exposed to a wide variety
of diverse social and political interests. The use of
racial or ethnic classifications, whether described as
"goals," quotas or something else, did not further this
goal, however, because it set aside places in the class
for persons solely on this basis, without regard to
whether the acceptance or rejection of specific indi—
viduals on the basis of their race was promoting true

30 Thus the Justice found

diversity within the university.
that strict racial "track programs for admission," no
matter how many special groups they might include, did

not further a compelling interest. Instead, if a univers—
ity wished to assert this "compelling interest" to justify
its admissions program, it would have to establish an
admissions procedure that would consider all facets of an
applicant's background when that applicant was considered
for admission on the basis of particular personal char-
acteristics, or for the attainment of diversity in the
student body. "An otherwise qualified medical student
with a particular background-—whether it be ethnic, geo-
graphic, culturally advantaged or disadvantaged--may

bring to a professional school of medicine experiences,

outlooks and ideas that enrich the training of its student

 

30
Ibid., p. 2761 (Powell, J.).

30

body and better equip its graduates to render with under—

standing their vital service to humanity.31
In order to explaintfluatype of program which he

found constitutional, Justice Powell described the

Harvard College admissions program as it had been described

in the brief of several amici curiae.32 In the Harvard

 

program the grades and test scores, as well as the personal
background of each individual was evaluated by a committee.
In such a program the applicant%; racecnrethnic back-
ground would be considered, as the person's age, achieve-
ments in non-scholastic areas, economic background, and
other characteristics. In this way, the admissions com-
mittee would attempt to achieve a "mix" of a wide variety
of people within the student body. Justice Powell is
quoted in the Appendix to his opinion:

The Admissions Committee, with only a few places

left to fill, might find itself forced to choose

between A, the child of a successful black physi-

cian in an academic community with promise of

superior academic performance, and B, a black who

grew up in an inner city ghetto of semi-literate

parents whose academic achievement was lower, but

who had demonstrated energy and leadership, as

well as an apparently abiding interest in black
power. If a good number of black students much

 

3lIbid., p. 2761 (Powell, J.).

32Columbia University, Harvard University, Stan-
ford University, and the University of Pennsylvania filed
a brief with the Court as Amici Curiae. 98 S. Ct. at
2762, (Opinion of Powell, J., and Appendix to his Opinion).

31

like A but few like B had already been admitted,
the Committee might prefer B; and vice versa.3

Harvard's statement goes on to say that the Com-
mittee might decide to prefer C, an artistically talented

34 Justice Powell found that

white, over both the blacks.
such a procedure would be permissible even though it was
race conscious and even though some candidates of equal
ability would lose out on the "last" place in the class
to persons who had received a "plus" because of their
racial or ethnic background. However, the Justice found
that this type of race consciousness in admissions pro-
cedures was permissible because the candidate who had been
denied admission had not been denied a benefit solely on
the basis of race; he had been considered for all of the
places in the class and the decision was simply that "his
combined qualifications, which may have included similar
nonobjective factors, did not outweigh those of the other
applicant."35
Justice Powell did not limit consideration of
these personal factors only TUB granting a "plus" because
an individual was a member of a racial or disadvantaged

minority, rather than on educationally advantaged member

of a racial majority. Powell's statement regarding

 

3398 s. Ct. at 2766 (Powell, J.).

34Ibid.

3598 s. Ct. at 2763 (Powell, J.).

32

"cultural advantage or disadvantage," and his statement
that "the weight attributed to a particular quality may
vary from year to year depending upon dua'mix' both of the
student body and the applicants for the incoming class,"36
makes it appear that Justice Powell would allow a univer-
sity'UDgive a "plus" to economically advantaged white
students over minorities once it had a sufficient "mix"
of minority members. Powell found that there would be no
"facial infirmity" in such programs and that the Court,
in his own opinion, would not allow such an admissions
program to 1x2 challenged on the basis of its disparate
impact on persons of similar races because "good faith
would be presumed" in the absence of a showing of a dis-
. . 37
criminatory purpose.
The only portion of Justice Powell's opinion con—

cerning the legality or constitutionality of racial class-
ifications that received five votes was the following
paragraph:

In enjoining petitioner from ever considering the

race of any applicant, however, the courts below

failed to recognize that the State has a sub-

stantial interest that legitimately may be served

by a properly devised admissions program involving

the competitive consideration of race and ethnic

origin. For this reason, so much of the Califor-

nia court's judgment as enjoins petitioner from

any consideration of the race of any applicant
must be reversed.38

 

36 4
Ibid.

3
7Ibid.

3898 S. Ct. at 2764 (Powell, J.).

33

Justice Brennan, White, Marshall and Blackmun
voted to uphold the Davis program under both Title VI and
the equal protection clause. They joined Justice Powell
to form a majority in holding that some affirmative action
programs are both constitutional and legal under Title VI,
but they differed from Justice Powell in that they would
have found the Davis program, or ones employing similar-
racial goals or preferences,met the relevant constitutional
and statutory standards. These four justices joined in
an opinion written by Justice Brennan, although each of
the other three justices added additional comments in
separate concurring Opinions.

Justice Brennan recognized that racial classifi—
cations advancing interests of racial minorities might
disadvantage white persons because of their race. But the
Brennan plurality believed that there was no justification
for judicial protection of members of the white majority
with a test so strict that it would bar virtually all
such remedial programs.4O

Justice Brennan went on to explain that classifi-

cations which burden white persons incident to such

 

3998 S. Ct. at 2766 (Brennan, Marshall, White
and Blackmun, J.J., concurring in the judgment in part and
dissenting in part).

4098 S. Ct. at 2785 (quoting from Gunther, "In
Search of Evolving Doctrine on a Changing Court: A Model

for a Newer Equal Protection," 86 Harvard Law Review 1, 8
(1972).

 

34

programs should not be tested under the "very loose rational
basis standard of review that is the very least that is
always applied "when reviewing equal protection claims."41
In reviewing the constitutionality of the Davis
Special admissions program, Justice Brennan first examined
whether Davis had demonstrated an articulated purpose
for the program that was of sufficient importance to jus-
tify racial classification. Justice Brennan found that
the attempt to remedy past societal discrimination was
sufficient to justify the use of race—conscious admissions
programs, at least when there was a reasonable basis for
concluding that minority underrepresentation in such
programs would be both substantial and related to past

42 He then found that there was

racial discrimination.
more than a reasonable basis for the conclusion that past
racial discrimination, including continuing effects of
the "separate but equal" doctrine, had disadvantaged
members of racial minorities to the extent that they were
chronically under-represented in medical schools and the
medical profession. The Brennan Opinion also noted that

the Davis program "does not simply equate minority status

with disadvantaged."

 

4198 S. Ct. 2783 (Brennan, Marshall, White and
Blackmun, J.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

4298 s. Ct. at 2785, 2789.

4398 s. Ct. at 2792-93.

35

In the final portion of his opinion, Justice
Brennan stated that there were no requirements that govern-
ment agencies or universities use only the "positive
factor".approach employed in the Harvard College program
described by Justice Powell. While the Harvard program
would be a legitimate one, absent proof of intentional
discrimination against members of a racial minority, it

44 The Davis “quota"

was not constitutionally required.
or "goal" system was acceptable because it was a reason-
able means Of remedying chronic under-represenation in the
medical profession of members of racial minorities that
historically had been discriminated against in society.
For that reason, these four justices voted to uphold the
Davis program under both the Fourteenth Amendment and
Title VI.45
Justice Stevens wrote an opinion joined by Chief

46 These

Justice Burger and Justices Stewart and Rehnquist.
four justices found it unnecessary to address the consti-
tutional issue in Bakke because both Davis's Special admis-

sions program and the exclusion of Allan Bakke from medical

 

4498 S. Ct. at 2767 n.1. Indeed, the Brennan
plurality found no Significant difference between Harvard's
plan and that of Davis.

45116161.

4698 S.Ct. 2809-15 (Stevens, Stewart, Rehnquist,
J.J. and Burger, C.J.), concurring in part and dissenting
in part).

36

school violated Title VI. Justice Stevens first noted
that the case was an individual's suit, not a class
action, and found the distinction significant because the
trial court's order and the California Supreme Court's
reversal thereof could be read narrowly. Justice Stevens
argued that the California Supreme Court had ordered the
individual plaintiff admitted to medical school, and not
ordered all state agencies or all schools to stop consid-
ering race when processing applications for educational or
other benefits. These justices believed that Title VI
itself precluded any race-conscious admissions program;
therefore, for this plurality, the Title VI ground for
affirming the California Supreme Court's decision obViated
any need to reach the constitutional issues. "It is . . .
perfectly clear that the question whether race can ever
be used as a factor in an admissions decision is not an
issue in this case, and that discussion of that issue is
inappropriate.47
Justice Stevens concluded that Section 601 of the
Civil Rights Act Of 1964 required complete racial neutral-
ity, or "colorblindness,“ by all administrators of pro-
grams accepting federal funds. He found that the "plain
language of the statute" required this result absent clear

legislative history indicating an intent to give the words

 

4798 S. Ct. at 2810 (Stevens, J.).

37

a meaning other than their normal ordinary read-
ing.48

Finally, these justices stated that the Court should
hold that Title VI created a cause of action so that private
persons could seek a judicial remedy for injuries caused
them by violation of the Act, although they did not approve
the allowance of private suits to terminate federal fund-
ing of such programs.49 Thus, five justices voted to
require the Davis Medical School to admit Bakke, but

there was no majority Opinion as to why he should have been

admitted.

Review Of Related Literature

 

Kent Greenawalt's analysis of the Bakke case exam-
ines how legal evaluation in the constitutional content
differs from straight-forward ethical evaluation and how
ethical concerns intertwinevdth.legal ones and influence
judicial decisions.50

In the Bakke case, the job of the Supreme Court

was not to decide whether reverse discrimination is, on

 

4898 S. Ct. at 2811 (Stevens, J.).

4998 s. Ct. at 2814, 15.

50R. Kent Greenawalt, Discrimination and Reverse
Discrimination Essay and Materials in Law and PhilOSOphy,
Commission<n1Undergraduate Education in Law and the Humani—
ties, American Bar Association, 1979, p. 86.

 

 

38

balance, ethically desirable. It was to determine whether
the specific program employed by the medical school at
Davis, the setting aside of Sixteen places in an entering
class of 100 for disadvantaged minority students who were
selected by a separate admission process, violated either
a federal statute barring discrimination in institutions
receiving federal grants or violated the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.51

It is sometimes said that race and other similar
classifications are "suspect," and therefore warrant strict
scrutiny, because they are based on immutable character-
istics; and it is undoubtedly relevant that no one can
freely change his race. But a classification in terms of
intelligence or height is also based on immutable char—
acteristic, or at least a characteristic not easily
altered.52 The point must be that race is not immutable,
but also is perceived as being irrelevant to one's capaci—
ties,opportunities and deserts as a human being.53 Thus a
legislative classification in those terms requires very
careful review.

Allan Sindler presents a political dimension, in

which Powell's diversity theme had obvious attractiveness

 

51 4
Ibid., p. 87.

2
Ibid., p. 95.

53 4
Ibid., p. 95.

39

as a comprehensive view containing "bottom line" results
that had something for everyone.54 Quotas were banned and
Bakke was admitted, but schools could still secure Signifi-

cant levels of minority enrollment under the banner of

student diversity.55

The diversity thesis would enable some to argue--as
Powell did-~that being an inner-city black represented a
"plus" in no way different from the "plus" that might be
assigned the farm boy from Kansas or the trombonist from any-
where. At the least, an emphasis on student diversity,
together with use of the form of a Harvard-type admissions

program, would tend to mask, rather than isolate and spot-

light, the special treatment of race.56

Sindler explains that the theme of diversity as a

"solution" had its own large complement of liabilities and

dangers.57

Eastland and Bennett recognize that only ten or
twelve institutions run Special admission policies like

Davis's, however, these commentators might well have "muted

"58

their applause and heightened their anxieties. The two

54Allan P. Sindler, Bakke, DeFunis, and Minority
Admissions, The Quest for Equal Opportunity, Longman
Corporation, New York, 1978, p. 314.

55Ibid.
56Ibid., p. 315.

57Ibid., p. 316.

58Terry Eastland, William Bennett, Counting_By Race:
Equality from the Founding Fathers to Bakke and Weber
(New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1979), p. 194.

 

 

 

 

4O

decisions in Bakke did not promise to have equivalent
impact.59 Eastland and Bennett conclude that the United
States Supreme Court paid some attention to the idea of
moral equality, but in the end it wound up honoring the
idea of moral equality. In invalidating quotas but allow-
ing counting by race, the Court made a distinction without
a numerical difference.6O
J. Harvie Wilkinson III acknowledges the problem
that what made Bakke so difficult was the absence of any
prior discrimination on the part Of the Davis Medical
School for which affirmative action might compensate.
Thus confusion develOped over just what the Davis program
was meant to redress.61 Wilkinson III concludes that
after Bakke, numerical guideposts are likely to be subtle,
so tacit, so internalized and unwritten as to defy judicial
discernment. And the line between prior numerical reliance
and the "individualized, case by case" review urged by

Justice Powell, is so fine as to make erure litigation

a certainty.62

 

591b1d.

6OIbid., p. 195.

61J. Harvie Wilkinson III, From Brown to Bakke,
The Supreme Court And School Integration: 1954-1978
(New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1979), p. 275.

62Ibid., p. 278.

 

41

Ronald Dworkin presents a poignant analysis.63

Affirmative action in higher education uses racially
explicit criteria because their goal is to increase the
number Of members of certain races in graduate programs.

64 The first is a

The purposes rest on two judgments.
judgment of social theory: that America will continue

to be pervaded by racial decisions as long as the most
lucrative, satisfying, and important careers remain mainly
the prerogative of members of the white race, while others
feel themselves systematically excluded from a professional
and social elite. The second is a calculation of strategy:
that increasing the number of blacks who are at work in

the professions will, in the long run, reduce the sense

of frustration and injustice and racial self-consciousness
in the black community to the point of which blacks may
begin to think of themselves as individuals who can succeed
like others through talent and initiative. At that future
point the consequences Of nonracial admission programs,
whatever these consequences might be, could be accepted

. . . . . . 65
W1th no sense Of rac1a1 barriers or injustice.

 

63Ronald Dworkin, "Why Bakke Has No Case," The
New York Review of Books 24 (November 18, Number 10,
1977), p. 11.

64

 

Ibid.

651bid., p. 12.

42

Dworkin concludes that given the current makeup
and outlook of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the nature of
the case before the Justices, it was almost inevitable
that the Court's decision in Bakke would be a narrow one.66

Cohen noted that the essence Of the Bakke case was
preference by race and that the official favoritism by
race or national originits"poison"tx>American society.67

The effects of Bakke on selective admissions is
presented by Howe. It is noted that the Supreme Court's
Bakke decision does not require affirmative action in
admissions--it merely allows it. The Court's support
for the use of race as a permissible criterion in univer-
sityadmissions is no guarantee to minority persons that
they will receive special considerations in competition
with whites.68

Astin suggests that the roles and Options open in
the continuing effort to increase minority participation
in higher education and the professions are of paramount

importance. Actions of colleges and universities in

admissions are addressed, along with the efforts of state

 

66Ibid.

67Carl Cohen, "Who Are Equals," Phi Kappa Phi
Journal 58 (1978): 10—14.

68Harold Howe II, "The Effects of Bakke on Selective
Admissions," Change 10 (September 1978): 13, 61.

 

43

and federal government programs,professional associations,
and educational researchers.69
McCormack presents an analysis of the Bakke deci—
sion and the several opinions of the Supreme Court Jus—
tices. The principle issue presented by this case is
whether a higher education institution usingaaselective
admissions program may adjust that program by giving
explicit preference to qualified members of identified
racial or ethnic groups who would otherwise be denied
admission. The circumstances are outlined in the applica—
tion and rejection of Allan Bakke to the Medical School
of the University of California at Davis. Implications
Of the decisions that are discussed concern Title VI
coverage; discretion in constructing admissions plans.
A basic conclusion to be drawn from this report is that
the Supreme Court has recognized the authority of insti—
tutionscxfhigher education to continue under certain cir—
cumstances their affirmative action programs.70

Perhaps the most complete analysis of the Regents

of University of California v. Bakke, 98 S. Ct 2733, is

 

 

69Alexander W. Astin, "Looking Beyond Bakke,"
New Directions for Higher Education 6 (1978): 95.

70Wayne McCormack, "The Bakke Decision: Implica-
tions for Higher Education Admissions," a report of the
ACE—AALS Committee on Bakke (U.S. District of Columbia,
1978), p. 42.

 

44

presented by Lockhart, Kamisar and ChOper. The authors
point out that universities have adopted preferential
admissions policies without legislative sanction. Thus
the precise issue is not whether such policies are valid
when adopted by a broadly representative, politically
responsible legislature, but whether they are valid when
adopted by a university and whether in determining the
validity of state action that trenches upon constitutional
values, the courts ought to consider whether the judgment
under review is that of legislative or of an agency that
is less representative Of the public and lacking direct

political responsibility.71

Semen

The Bakke decision was merely a compromise. This
decision perpetuates the distinction in law that has
created a distinction of constitutional dignity between
goals and quotas.

Justice Powell's constitutional decision amounts
to two opinions, not one. In operational terms, the two
opinions yield these instructions: (1) NO applicant can
be excluded from consideration for any place in the enter-
ing class on account of race. The use of a quota to

ensure admissions Of at least a minimum number of minority

 

7lWilliam B. Lockhart, Yale Kamisar, and Jesse
H. Choper, Constitutional Law, 5th ed. (St. Paul, Minn.:
West Publishing Co., 1980), p. 1363.

 

 

 

 

 

45

applicants is thus, impermissible; (2) The school can

take race into account as one factor in the admissions
decision, so long as it does so for the purpose of secur—
ing a diverse student body. The admissions process can be
race-conscious, but not too much.

The California Supreme Court gave the University
an opportunity to demonstrate that Bakke would not have
been selected, even in the absence of a minority set-
aside, but the University did not even attempt to do so.
Accordingly, the Court had no choice but to order Bakke's
admission. In the United States Supreme Court, Justice
Powell took the position that Bakke's injury was not the
failure to be admitted, but the exclusion from competi-
tion.

In the followng chapter, the researcher will
examine the present status of admissions policies at medi-
cal schools and the status of minority representation in
those medical schools. Such an examination is important
to a better understanding of the relationship of the
Bakke decision and its relationship to medical school

admissions policies.

‘46

 

.mm "Amhmav moguACMEsm on» can 3mg SH coaumoscm mumscmumuwcco co cofimmfleaoo =.>nm0moawcmm::~36q ca

mamwuoumz cam wmmmm

"coaumcaswuomflo omuo>mm cam coaumcflfiwuomwot

.uam3mcmmuw ucmx .m "OOHSOm

 

meowmmflficw How :OAHOUHHO
uwmoum w uo: occulv

mamas
manfixoam ouoE
co mcofimmflepm

 

 

muflmno>flc :H ucsooom Opcfl

manmumooom mom“ musumum nope: muOEoum moon mcflxmu mo

MOM tycoon manflxoawlm manmumooom uoz Ou mandumooo¢ manmummoom wufiaflnoumoood

wanmummoom

those eeoeeue ousumum

cancumooom wn couufienom mmuosv

manmumooom ousumum hops: haamcoflu cam manmumooo< CHOHM mw>mo mo

uo: muonv mefiulm manmummoom uoz Isuwuwcoo uoz >Ham:0ausuwumcoo >uHHflnmummoofi
>uamum>w© How wane moaufiawnfimmom
mucouomoum O>wm cmona Honuo mmsowwc

comm one we: cflc “coaumca mocoummoum

 

coflumcflfifluo Inocflwcoo How IEHquHc HMUOHOOm HMflomm Mom
Imam xn pomsmo Cowmou Homoum xn cmmswo momma .>:< wH .wcommmm
ommucm>cmmflc m >uflmuo>flc lam>cmmflp mmoupou ucowowmmsm
mmmupmu scone mwzomfla uoz cflo Ofleopmom >Hco ou OHQHmmHEHOm >HHOSOflusufiumcoo
mmocmum
Immnm Hmflomu mumnlm :oflumcwfifluomwp pom munowm
HMSOHU coaumcwEwuoch Hw>HU mo
GOAHOGHEMHOch HMSOfiu wmocoum Isuflumcoocs Hmcowusuflum How coHuoom

Isuwumcoocn waco mumnim

Imoum HMHOMH mumm

aaco whom

Icoocs >Hco mumm

mo mcwcmoz

 

mamuoe

umflsvcnom can
pumsoum mOOHumsh
“Homusm OOHu
Inna mownu :ua3
mco>mum OOflumsn

Haozom OOflumsn

EdsxomHm
.Haosmuoz .ouesz
.cmccwum mmOHuman

 

COMmAOOQ oxxmm osu ca mooauOSO mDOHHm> mo :ofluflmommfloiu.a.m mqm¢fi

CHAPTER III

PRESENT STATUS OF ADMISSIONS POLICIES AT
MEDICAL SCHOOLS: STATUS OF MINORITY

REPRESENTATION

Introduction

 

The relevance of this chapter is best understood
by the different sources or levels of admissions policy.

Three kinds of policy can be identified. One is
explicit public policy of the institution. It is explicit
in the same sense that it is formulated by some policy
making process and adopted as policy of the institution.
It is public in the sense that the institution prints it
in its catalog or other similar document. This means that
anyone can find the policy of the institution and take
action with regard to it, e.g., decide to apply or not to
apply, or decide to challenge this eXplicit policy if they
have been denied admission, as Mr. Bakke did.

The second source of policy is explicit but non-
public. Again, it is formulated by some responsible
member or committee of the institution, but it is not
publically stated. This policy might be something agreed

to by an admissions committee, e.g., that they will seek

47

48

a 20 percent proportion of blacks in an entering class,
but will not be stated in a way which makes it possible
for those outside the committee or institution to know
what the policy is.

A third sort of policy is policy that is implicit
and hence not public. By implicit policy, one means
policy that might be identified by examining the results
of the admissions decisions made by an admissions com—
mittee. Suppose that for a given medical school there
is a 30 percent proportion of blacks who apply to the
school, but only 1 percent of the entering class is
black. That tells one about the implicit policy of the
school, despite what the explicit policy is. Implicit
policy is often shaped by the concerns of individuals
who make up the body making decisions. If there were a
black physician on an admissions committeexflx>believed
that minority applicants should be given preferential
treatment, his input to the committee's decisions would
result in a larger number of blacks being admitted to the
school. Often members of a committee are aware of the
concerns of other members of the committee and are willing
to allow them to influence the decisions in a given direc-
tion.

In order to determine what impact, if any, the

Bakke decision has had on admissions policies of medical

49

schools, one needs to distinguish the three different kinds
of policy. This means that one needs to carefully examine
the admissions process and the kinds of considerations

that are used in making admissions decisions. This is what
gives the rationale for the literature review of admis-
sions procedure in the first part of Chapter III.

Present Status of Admissions Policies
at Medical Schools

 

 

The medical profession needs individuals from
diverse educational backgrounds who will bring to the
profession a variety of talents and interests. Educa-
tional philosophies and goals, systems of training, and
specific premedical course requirements and other qualifi—
cations for admission vary among the nation's medical
schools. All, however, recognize the desirability of a
broad education-—a strong foundation in the natural
sciences (biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics),
highly developed communication skills, and a solid back-
ground in the social sciences and humanities as shown in
Table 3.1.1

Principles and vocabularies of the sciences basic

to medicine must be understood by first-year medical stu—

dents. A thorough understanding of modern concepts in

 

lAAMC Staff for Medical School Admission Require-
ments 1982-83, p. 7.

50

TABLE 3.l.--Subjects required by 10 or more U.S. medical
schools for 1982-83 entering classa

 

No. of Schools

 

Required Subjects (N = 126)b
Organic chemistry 122
Physics 120
Biology (unspecified) 111
Inorganic chemistry 89
English 85
Chemistry (unspecified) 26
College mathematics 26
Calculus 23
Humanities (unspecified) l4
Behavioral science (unspecified) 11
General biology 11
College algebra 10
Social science (unspecified) 10

 

aFigures based on data provided fall 1980.

bThree of the 126 medical schools (Arkansas,
Illinois, and Missouri-Kansas City) did not indicate
specific course requirements and are not included in
the tabulations.

51

biology, chemistry, and physics is necessary since the
study and practice of medicine are based on these disci-
plines. Candidates for medical school must study in these
areas in order to (l) confirm their interest in a capacity
for proceeding further in these fields, (2) enable medi-
cal schools to estimate their achievement and potential
in these areas, and (3) meet the requirements of state
laws governing physician licensure.2

As medical schools respond to national social
issues and problems in health care delivery, an effort
is being made to select individuals whose personal and
career goals are compatible with the needs of society.
Major curriculum revisions at some institutions are
designed to encourage students to pursue (l) careers in
primary care medicine and (2) careers in underserved
geographical areas. Schools are also attempting to
broaden the socioeconomic diversity of entering medical
school classes and to eXpand educational opportunities
for men and women who are members of racial/ethnic groups
that have been underrepresented in medicine.3

College grades are perhaps the most important
Single predictor of medical school performance, although

medical schools do recognize that grading policies may

 

2Ibid.

3Ibid., p. 7.

52

differ from one college to another or even within depart-
ments of the same institution. As shown in Table

3.2, most first-year medical students from 1975-76 to

TABLE 3.2.--Undergraduate grades of first-year U.S.
medical students 1976-76 through 1979-80

 

Percentage of Medical

Students with Premedical
First-Year Grade Averages of:a
Class

 

A B C
3.5-4.0 2.6-3.5 Below 2.6

 

1975-76 44.2 47.4 2.4
1976-77 46.0 47.3 2.7
1977-78 50.4 43.0 1.6
1978-79 49.6 46.9 1.7

1979-80 49.2 47.2 1.8

 

Source: American Medical Association.
aGrades not reported account for the remaining per-

centage of students (less than 7 percent of each of the
above classes).

1979-80 had achieved undergraduate averages Of A or B.4

In 1979-80 only 1.8 percent of the first-year students
for whom undergraduate grades are known (98 percent) had
averages of C (below 2.6). The mean premedical grade-
point average (GPA) of first-year entrants during the

19705 was approximately 3.5 or a high B+. The C students

 

41bid., p. 10.

53

admitted in recent years were usually individuals who
either achieved strikingly improved performances in their
premedical studies after modest beginnings in their early
years of college or demonstrated other characteristics
deemed desirable for medicine by the various medical
school admission committees.5
There is a universal feeling that medicine demands
superior personal attributes of its students and practi-
tioners. Integrity and responsibility assume major impor—
tance in the research laboratory and in the classroom,
as well as in relationshipsVflifl1patients and colleagues.
Medical schools also look for evidence of such other
traits as leadership, social maturity, purpose, motiva-
tion, initiative, curiosity, common sense, perseverance,
and breadth of interests.6
Because of the demanding nature of both the train-
ing for and the practice of medicine, motivation is per-
haps the most salient nonintellectual trait sought by most
admission committees. It is assumed that a qualified
applicant to medical school will have not only a general
understanding of the profession, but also a demonstrated

interest in the knowledge of what medicine is about.7

 

51bid.

6Ibid.

7Ibid., p. 10.

54

Poorman described the admissions interview as one
of the most widely used techniques that medical schools
have to evaluate nonintellectual characteristics of
applicants.8 Gough stated that it is one of the two most
frequently used methods for evaluating nonintellectual
characteristics of medical school applicants.9 Char
and colleagues described the interview as one of the
three parameters for selection, putting it on a par with
the grade-point average and the Medical College Admis—

10

sions Test (MCAT). Peck and colleagues indicated that

information gained from the interview is "without question'
critical to a comprehensive evaluation.11

According to data obtained from Medical School
Admission Requirements, 1981-82, 99 percent of all medical

schools use the interview in the selection process. This

widespread use further supports the idea that medical

 

8D. H. Poorman, "Medical School Applicants,"
Journal of Kansas Medical Society 76 (1975): 298-330.

9H. G. Gough, "Nonintellectual Factors in the
Selection and Evaluation of Medical Schools," Journal
of Medical Education 42 (1977): 642-650.

lOW. F. Char et al., "Interviewing, Motivation, and
Clinical Judgment,“ Journal Of Medical Evaluation 50
(1975): 192-194.

110. C. Peck, M. J. Krowka, and J. R. May, "Feed—
back from Admission Committees to Applicant Interviewers,"
Journal of Medical Education 53 (1978): 680-681.

 

 

 

 

55

school admission committees rely on the interview to

help select students.12

Despite this reliance, according to Fruen, there
has been surprisingly little research on the interview
in the medical school admissions setting.l3 Fruen

found only eight articles in the Journal of Medical Edu-

 

cation during the last 10 years that concentrated on the
subject of medical student admission interviews. No com-
prehensive description of the interview process in U.S.
medical schools was found in the literature search,
although the study by Char did provide descriptive infor-
mation as a part of a total study on admissions.l4
Medical School Admission Requirements contain a state-
ment on the interview and its role in the selection
process from a general vieWpoint. ~Research using the
National Library of Medicine's Medline (1978-1980) and
the Education Resources Information Center (1975-1980)
revealed no articles on medical school admissions inter-

views that provided descriptive information on the inter-

view process. The author found one book on medical

 

12Medical School Admission Requirements, 1981—82

 

(Washington, D.C.: Association of American Medical
Colleges, 1980.

13M. A. Fruen, "Medical School Admissions Inter—
view: Pro and Con," Journal of Medical Education 55
(1980): 630.

14

Char et al., "Interviewing, Motivation, and
Clinical Judgment," p. 193.

56

school admissions interviewing containing descriptive
information on the entire admissions process that included
the interview, but it was limited primarily to case
studies at one institution.15

He collected data through a questionnaire to
obtain descriptive information on the medical school
admissions interview. Using frequency-count, the authors
tabulated the raw data and converted it to percentages
for comparison purposes.16

The population for the study consisted of all 123
U.S. medical schools in the United States listed in the
Medical School Admission Requirements, 1981-82. The
questionnaire was mailed to the individuals listed in the
roster of the Association of American Medical Colleges'
Group on Student Affairs who were designated as being in
charge of Admissions. Responses totaled 107, or 87 per-
cent.17

Statistical tests of significance differences

were not appropriate for the study, since the entire

 

15M. R. Lerner, Medical School: The Interview and
the Applicant (Woodbury, N.Y.: Barron's, 1977).

16James B. Puryear and Lloyd A. Lewis, "Descrip-
tion of the Interview Process in Selecting Students for
Admission to U.S. Medical Schools," Journal of Medical
Education 56 (1981): 882.

17

 

 

 

 

Ibid.

 

57

population received a copy of the instrument, rather than
a random sample.18
Of the respondents, 99 percent (106 of 107)
indicated that they used the interview in student selec—
tion. On a four-point scale, ranging from very important
to unimportant, an overwhelming majority (98 percent) Of
the respondents who used the interview indicated that the
interview was important to some degree. Also, 72 percent
said it was "very important" and 26 percent said it was
"important." The only school responding which said the
interview was "unimportant” was the school which did not
interview. Two schools waived the interview requirements
for some students whom they deemed acceptable without
interviews.19
Eight schools (8 percent) which were interviewed
indicated that they used a selection index for admission
processing, with the interview having a specific percentage
weight. The average weight of the interview in the selec-
tion process for these eight schools was 31 percent, with
the range being from 16 percent to 60 percent. It is
assumed that the remaining 92 percent (98) Of the schools
which interview incorporated the interview data into their

0 I I I I I 20
dec151on-making process in a subjective manner.

 

lBIbid.

lgIbid.

201bid.

58

Respondents were asked to rank (on a scale of
first to fourth) the grade-point average, Medical College
Admission Test (MCAT) scores, references, and interviews
as to order of importance in the selection of applicants.

The results are in Table 3.3.

TABLE 3.3.--Rankinga by 107 medical schools of the impor-
tance of selection factors in the student
admission process

 

 

Factors First Second Third Fourth
GPA ‘66 23 5 2
MCAT Scores 36 34 16 10
References 27 25 26 18
Interviews 58 18 14 5

 

aThe total of each level does not equal the total
respondents since some schools gave the same rating more
than once in case of equal rank. Eleven schools which
interview did not rank the selection factors.

Source: James B. Puryear and Lloyd A. Lewis,
"Description of the Interview Process in Selecting Students
for Admission to U.S. Medical Schools," Journal of Medical
Education 56 (1981): 882.

 

 

It seems obvious that the interview component
"clusters" in a rank Of primary importance along with
grade-point average in the selection criteria. MCAT scores

and references appear to be of secondary importance.21

 

2libid.

59

When categories were combined by adding first and
second ratings, grade-point average leads with 89, inter-
views follow with 76, the MCAT is third with 70, and
references are fourth with 52. This view indicates that
interviews "cluster" in a rank of secondary importance
with the MCAT, but are still ahead of MCAT scores in
importance.22

Obviously, most medical schools consider the
interview important in the selection of students. This
is made evident (a) by their responses in this survey,

(b) by the fact that almost all schools use the interview
in their selection process, and (c) by the fact that a
considerable amount of faculty and staff time is used in
arranging for interviews and participating in the inter-
views themselves. However, medical schools have appar-
ently not, for the most part, established the effective-
ness of their own interviews. Perhaps they rely on the
research of others to establish the validity of the inter-
view process. He, however, found the literature on the
validity Of interviews as a selection tool to be incon-
clusive.23

The foregoing review of admissions procedures

shows that the process is so multi-faceted that there is

 

22Ibid.

23Ibid., p. 885.

60

ample Opportunity for nonpublic, explicit policy to be
formulated which augments, or even runs contrary to
explicit public policy. And there is ample Opportunity
for implicit policy to augment, or run counter to any
explicit policy. The interviewing process and use of
letters of reference allow admissions committees to make
decisions on what some people would regard as subjective
criteria, as opposed to scores on standardized tests and

grade point averages.

Minority Representation in Medical Schools

 

Black Americans, American Indians, Mexican Ameri-
cans, mainland Puerto Ricans, and individuals from low-
income families are the predominant minority groups not
adequately represented in medical care, teaching, and
research. Medical schools are committed to increasing
educational opportunities for these groups. Through
the medical schools' recruitment activities and summer
programs, qualified, motivated, and dedicated underrepre-
sented minority students are being encouraged to pursue
careers in medicine. However, recruitment and admission
of minority students are only two aspects of the expan-
sion of opportunities for minorities in medicine. Once
matriculated, minority students may be assisted by the
academic and personal support systems that the medical

schools provide. These support systems promote the

 

61

successful completion of medical studies by minority stu-
dents and thereby help achieve the ultimate goal: increas—
ing thexnnan:of minority physicians available to enter
careers in patient care, teaching, and research.

Over the past decade, first-year and total enroll—
ment of underrepresented minority students have increased
substantially. From 1970-1971 to 1980-81, first-year
minority enrollment increased by 92 percent from 808 to
1,548 respectively. Minority enrollment in all years
increased by 200 percent from 1,723 in 1970-71 to 5,209
in 1980-81. PrOportionally, however, in 1980-81 minority
students represented 9.0 percent of the first-year class
and 8.0 percent of all students. These percentages are
slightly lower than those recorded in 1974 (10.0 percent
for first-year and 8.1 percent for total), when minority
student enrollment peaked as a percentage of all students.
Of particular interest is the continuing increase in the
proportion of minority women enrolled in medical school.
In the 1980-81 academic year, approximately 40 percent
of minority students enrolled were female as compared
with 20 percent in 1971-72.26

Table B.l shows the number of Black American,

American Indian, MeXican American, and mainland Puerto

 

24AAMC Staff for Medical School Admission Require-
ments, 1982-83, p. 46.

ZSIbid.

62

Rican students in all classes and in the first year class
at each medical school (see Appendix B).

Today minority groups are confronting some very
difficult problems and issues. The movement that once
supported programs to increase opportunities for minority
groups in higher education has generated a backlash.
Fortunately, this backlash has been impeded by the recent
Supreme Court decision in the Bakke case, in which a
majority of the court held that race could be one of the
factors used in the selection of students. Furthermore,
the decision removed a cloud of uncertainty which has
hung over affirmative action programs since the DeFunis
case in 1971. Medical schools now can continue expanding
their efforts to increase the participation of minority
students.26

Too Often in the past there has been a closed
system that did not reach all levels of the population.
Thus, a good finishing school, an Ivy League college,
and good performance in entrance exams were automatic
bonuses in a student's chances of entering the field of
medicine. Conversely, a student coming from a (poor)
district who with the same level of native intelligence
went to a community college and afterwards a state uni-

versity would not be highly favored. The reality is that

 

26J. A. D. Cooper, "The Bakke Decision,

_____ Journal
of Medical Education 53 (1978): 776-777.

 

63

all classes of people pay taxes which provide federal sup—
port to medical universities and colleges throughout the
land. Not to provide opportunities to the poor and to
minorities is to perpetuate an injustice and an educational
system where the poor subsidize the rich. This is intol-
lerable, and medical educators and administrators need

27

to exert clear and positive leadership.

This leadership needs also to confront the imme-

 

diate problems of the inadequate increase in minority
students enrolled in medical school. In the early 19705,
when the government encouraged medical schools to expand
their classes, federal efforts urged the recruitment of
more students:flnxnminority and disadvantaged groups.
During 1970-77, 18 new medical schools were developed in
this country. These new medical schools, as well as the
growth in class size of existing medical schools, created
4,788 new medical Slots. Data show that Black Americans,
American Indians, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans
received only 949 (20 percent) of these new places. More
distressingly, from 1974 to 1977 minority students lost
23 seats, while the number of medical school places
increased by 1,373. For the past three years, first-year

enrollment among minority group students has remained

 

Edward R. Roybal, "Minorities in Medicine: The
Next Decade," Journal of Medical Education 54 (August 1979),
653.

 

64

virtually unchanged. One of the reasons for this appears
to be the number of minority students applying to medical
school.28

From 1970 to the present, minority applicants
increased by more than 200 percent. Yet, the majority of
this increase occurred between 1970 and 1974. Since 1974
the pool has fluctuated between 3,200 and 3,300 appli-
cants, accounting for approximately 8.1 percent of all
medical school applicants. Furthermore, since 1974
the acceptance rate of minority students has dropped from
44 percent to its current rate (1977—78) of 40 percent.
This decline means that if minority students are, at
least, to maintain their present enrollment, the appli—
cant pool will have to be enlarged. If this is the case,
the long-range solution to increase the pool of minority
applicants will depend heavily on improved education
below the undergraduate level.29

Another problem in increasing the participation
of minority group students in medicine is the cost of
medical education. Now as these costs escalate, large
numbers of minority group students who are from families

with little financial resources will feel the greatest

impact. In the early 19705 the availability of student

 

281bid.

291516.

65

scholarships amiloans and capitation grants to medical
schools alleviated some of these concerns. However, as
the amount of capitation grants have decreased, tuitions
have increased. The long-range effect will be to reduce
Opportunities for students from families with low

incomes.30

Summary

The future of minority group participation in

 

medicine is threatened by all these problems--uncertainty
about affirmative action programs, rising medical educa—
tion costs, and recruitment of applicants. Future progress
is dependent on a firm and visible commitment by each
medical school to the existence and continuation of
affirmative action programs. As was stated in the AAMC
task force report, "With commitment . . . much can be
accomplished even within the financial, legal, and infor-
mational constraints. . . . Without institutional commit-

"31 If medical schools are

ment, the effort is a Charade.
committed to increasing minority enrollment--and if medi—
cal schools want to regain the momentum of the early

19705--a clear and visible commitment must be made. Each

medical school must reaffirm and commit more than a token

 

3OIbid.

31Minutes of AAMC Assembly Meeting, Journal of
Medical Education 54 (1979): 157-158.

 

 

 

 

66

share of its resources to programs that recruit minority
students and continue to support programs that provide
supportive services to these students.

Minority acceptance rates have drOpped. There
were 10 percent minorities in 1974, the peak year, and
there were 9 percent in 1980-81. The unavailability of
more data makes it difficult to draw conclusions about
implicit policies regarding minority admissions to medical
school.

In the following chapter the method described
examines explicit public policy regarding admissions
policies to medical schools prior to and subsequent to

the Bakke decision.

CHAPTER IV

DESIGN

The methodology and procedures used to conduct

this study are described in this chapter.

 

This study was conducted as an empirical inquiry
into the question of admissions policies at all 126
medical schools before and after the United States Supreme

Court Decision, Regents of University of California v.

 

Bakke, 98 Supreme Court, 2733, 1978.

Before the Bakke decision there were roughly three
kinds of policies that medical schools could have with
regard to minority admissions; at this point restricting
the discussion to explicit policy, whether public or non-
public.

1. A school could have a Davis type system,

e.g., they could set a quota for minority
admissions.

2. The school could take the position that

race or minority status is an important

factor among others in admissions decisions

67

68

but not have a quota. This would be a
Harvard-type system.
3. A school could take the position that

admissions decisions will be color blind,

 

that they will not inquire into the racial

status of applicants and base their

decisions on other criteria.
Prior to the Bakke decision, there was no constitutional
ruling that any of these were forbidden or mandatory. A
school could not look to the court for clear guidance on
what they must do, or must not do, with regard to race in
admissions decisions. After the Bakke decision, the first
option was no longer permissible by the ruling of five
members of the court. The second option was constitution—
ally permissible by a different five member majority of
the court. And it is of importance that four members of
the court believed that the Constitution forbids one and
two and therefore requires three. The bare majorities
that were formed in the case are not lost on those who
observe the court. A unanimous decision carries greater
persuasive force than a bare majority . . . so it would
be easy to react to the court's decision by reading
policy Option three as a sensible and constitutionally
viable position. Since two and three are constitutionally

permissible, a school might move toward three and away

69

from two. This may not Show up in the school's explicit
public policy, but could Show up in the explicit nonpublic
policy or in the implicit policy.

There has been no research on what has happened
to admissions policies since the Bakke decision. The
researcher realizes that nonpublic policy and implicit
policy are very difficult to research on a large-scale
basis. The only viable possibility would be a case
study or series of case studies. However, it is possible
to study the explicit public policies of medical schools.
The empirical study examined if there had been any changes
in admissions policies prior and subsequent to the Bakke
decision.

A medical school, or its admissions committee,
can have explicit and nonpublic policies regarding such
matters as minority admissions. That is, a school may
not say to the world at large that a certain number Of
positions are reserved for minority students, but the
admissions committee may say among themselves that they
have as a goal to admit some number of minority students
in a given class. This is an explicit policy which can
only be identified by a researcher who had access to
committee deliberations. Surveying public stated admis—
sions procedures, the researcher can only attempt to

identify explicit public policy.

70

The researcher requested information concerning
admission policies an: all 126 medical schools. The
researcher used the Medical Admissions Requirements book
published by the Association of American Medical Colleges,
1981-82, in writing to all 126 medical schools for admis-
sions materials to examine if there had been any changes
in admissions policies at medical schools between the

times before and after the Bakke case.

Method

Data were collected through a letter designed by
the researcher to obtain information on medical school
admissions prior to and subsequent to the Bakke decision.1

The population for the study consisted of all 126
U.S. medical schools in the United States listed in the
Medical School Admissions Requirements, 1981-82. The
letter was mailed to the individual medical schools listed
in the roster of the Association of American Medical
Colleges for Medical School Admission Requirements, 1981—
82 on December 12, 1981.

The letter asked each individual medical school
for the year 1976 and for the year 1980—81 to provide the
following:

1. Application form for admissions.

 

1A copy of this letter is in Appendix C.

 

71

2. Statement of admissions policies.

3. Any other relevant admissions materials.
Responses totaled 78, or 64 percent.

The researcher allowed eight weeks for the receipt
of the data and arbitrarily assigned February 16, 1982,
as a deadline.

The researcher hoped to receive a substantial
amount of admissions policies from the year 1976 and the
year 1981-82.

However, the researcher only received admissions
policies of six medical schools for the year of 1976.
These policies were pages taken from the catalogues of
that year. The researcher went to the library of one
university and was able to obtain the 1976 admissions
policy from that one additional institution. The
researcher then tried other avenues to procure more 1976
documents on admissions policies at medical schools. He
called 20 medical schools chosen at random from the pOpu-
lation of 126 to see if they could send admissions poli-
cies for the 1976 year. These 20 medical schools replied
that there were no 1976 admissions materials and cata-
logues available. The researcher then went to the uni-
versity library and found out that 1976 catalogues were
non-existant, except for that university's admissions
catalogue and that the only recent catalogues available

were of the 1981-82 year.

72

Thus the researcher could only review these seven
1976 admissions policies to assess policies before the

Bakke decision.

Analysis of Documents

 

Of the seven medical schools that had information
regarding 1976 and 1981-82 admissions policies, all reported
that a major effort was made to include applicants from
inadequately represented geographical areas and economic,
racial, and ethnic groups. The language in which these
policies were stated varied across the seven institutions.

Seven medical schools reported that they admit
students with diverse interests and backgrounds, again
with a variation of language regarding these processes
and policies. These medical schools reported that prior-
ity for consideration in medical schools are based pri-
marily on the overall quality of college performance and
on general ability and promise of the applicant. These
schools also mentioned appraisal of character, personality,
and general background, placing great emphasis to include
applicants fumninadequately represented geographical areas
and economic, racial, and ethnic groups. These documents
were eXpreSSing minority representation in a similar
fashion with three which had identical statements. State—

ments were as follows:

 

73

"X" University attempts to maintain a heterogeneous
student body by selecting well-qualified students
from diverse geographic, academic, socio-economic,
and racial backgrounds. The number of students
from any one college, religion, race, or sex
may vary from year to year.2

Another university's statement was:

To provide a diverse student body, the com—
mittee considers a variety of individual qual-
ifications and accomplishments, including non-
academic accomplishments and special talents,
the ability to establish raport and communicate
with others, the nature of the communities in
which the student has lived, racial, ethnic,
and economic backgrounds.3

Another university welcomes applicants from stu-
dents representing ndnority groups from all sections of
the country. Minority students from southeastern states
are especially encouraged to apply. Minority applicants
are expected to present a competitive level of academic
achievement.

One medical school reported because there is an
inadequate number of black and other minority group phy-
sicians, and because of the importance to future white
physicians of the opportunity to interact with and learn
about the problems of students from such groups, the

school is actively interested in attracting candidates

who can help make the student body more representative of

 

2Response from a university medical school in the
Southeast, dated December 2, 1981.

3Response from a university medical school in the
Atlantic Coast Region dated December 21, 1981.

74

our population and more realistically informed about
social problems affecting the delivery of health care in
this country.

Three medical schools have used exactly the same
sentence in stating that a major effort is made to
include applicants from inadequately represented geographi-
cal areas and economic, racial and ethnic groups for the

1976 year and the 1981-82 year regarding admissions poli—

 

cies.

These admissions statements have also stated that
students who have demonstrated intelligence, maturity,
integrity and dedication to the ideal of service to society
are best suited for meeting the educational goals of the
school and for the successful practices of medicine. All
of these individual medical schools desire students with
diverse interests and backgrounds. These seven medical
schools have not made any change in their documents from
the year 1976 to 1981-82 regarding admissions policies.
The statements on admissions policies were the same in
1976 and in 1981-82.

Minimum requirements for admission of all 1976
and 1981-82 statements on admissions also appear to be
approximately the same with regard to course requirements:

1. 90 semester hours (Six semester, nine

quarters) of college credit

75

2. English--six semester hours of college

credit (one year course or the equivalent)

3. Biology--eight semester hours of college

credit (one year course or the equivalent)

4. Physics--eight semester hours of college

credit (one year or the equivalent)

5. General chemistry--eight semester hours

of college credit (one year or the

equivalent)

6. Organic chemistry--no less than six semester

hours of college credit

7. An applicant's score on the Medical College

Admission Test (MCAT)

Of these seven medical schools, all stress the great

importance of chemistry, mathematics and physics as the

foundation of modern biological and medical sciences.

The admissions committee gives special attention to compe-

tence in these areas.

Thirty-seven medical schools voluntarily sent the

researcher a letter stating that there have been no

changes in their admissions policies with
explicit public policy. The reason given
cases was that no changes were necessary

never a quota of any type.4

 

4It may be noted that the medical
University of California at Davis did not
study.

regard to
in all of these

since there was

school at the
respond in this

76

One private institution in the East did make some
changes in the procedures for processing applications.
Before the Bakke decision, minority applications were
screened solely by members of the minority subcommittee.
Since that decision, these applications have had one
minority subcommittee screener and one screener from any
of the other subcommittees which handle nonminority appli-

cations.

 

That private institution also altered the proced-
ure so that the subcommittees forward to the Main Committee
a group of top applications without ranking. The Main
Committee is charged with the responsibility of then
voting on these and establishing its own ranking. In
this fashion,the minority and nonminority applications
are all handled without the existence of a separate track
for any group.

One Director of Admissions for the past 16 years
affirmed that no changes in policy, the decision process,
or any other factor in medical school admission came

about as the result of the Bakke decision.7

 

5Response from Private University in the East,
dated December 22, 1981.

61bid.

7Response from a Public University in the South-
east, dated December 14, 1981.

77

An Associate Dean of a school of medicine in the
South responded as follows:

Any changes we made in application materials
or policy have had nothing to do with the Bakke
decision.

It is my Opinion that the Supreme Court could
have made no other decision considering the asinine
way in which the school in question approached the
admission of medical students.

Philosophically, it resulted in a renewed com-
mitment on our part to affirmative action.8

An Associate Dean and recent chairman of all
Admission Deans in the country for the past two years
assured the researcher that most medical schools in the
United States have had no changes whatsoever before and
after the Bakke decision.9

Most universities' application form is the standard
AMCAS (American Medical College Application Service) form
which is utilized by 96 medical schools in the United
States.10

Only seven medical schools responded with admis—

sions materials which covered the 1976 year. The

researcher received 46 catalogues for the 1981-82 year.

 

8Response from a Public University in the South,
dated December 29, 1981.

9Re5ponse :flnmn Associate Dean and Chairman of all
Admissions Deans of Medical School in the Midwest, dated
December 16, 1981.

lOIbid.

 

78

Out of 78 total responses, 38 medical schools submitted
additional materials dealing with admissions procedures.
Only one institution responded differently as was

reported earlier in the chapter.

Summary

The nature and intent Of this study supported the

need for empirical inquiry.

 

Admissions policies were examined in 1976 and
1981-82 to determine if there had been any changes in
admissions policies between the times before and after the
ngkg decision. Nonpublic explicit policy and implicit
policy are very difficult to research on a large-scale
basis. However, the researcher found it possible to
study the explicit public policies of seven medical schools
prior and subsequent to the Bakke decision. The researcher
may conclude with regard to explicit public policy, seven
medical schools have not changed their admissions poli-
cies prior and subsequent to the Bakke decision. With
regard to explicit nonpublic policy and implicit policy,
the researcher cannot conclude that there have been any

changes prior to and subsequent to the Bakke decision.

 

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this final chapter, the study is summarized,

conclusions are enumerated and discussed, and implica-

tion for future research are presented.

 

Summary

The researcher has found that seven out of 126
medical schools have not changed their explicit public
policies (n? medical schools since the Bakke decision.
In addition, thirty-seven medical schools stated that
they did not change their policy due to the Bakke deci-
sion.

Prima facie, it is possible to believe that these

 

policies may have changed since the Bakke decision. The
number of minorities, as well as the proportion of minor-
ities has not increased since the Bakke decision. Further,
an institution, or admissions committee could read the
Bakke decision as implying that less attention to minority
applications is required. It could be read as pressing
away from any sort of goal or target for the number of

minorities in a class of students, and the result of

79

80

this is that fewer minorities would be admitted than

would have been had there been a goal or a target.

Conclusion

 

An analysis of the data would indicate that seven
out of 126 medical schools with regard to explicit public
policy have made no Significant changes in admissions
policies before and after the Bakke decision. It is

possible that the reason there have been no significant

 

changes is that no changes were necessary since few \
\1

schools, if any, beside Davis, used a quota of any \
type. In this fashion, the minority and nonminority
applicants were handled without the existence of a sepa-
rate track for any group.

Based on the research, there is no evidence to
support that explicit public policies of seven medical
schools have changed since the Bakke decision. But one
does not know whether other schools would have adopted a
Davis-type approach if the court had ruled that it was
constitutionally permissible. It is common knowledge
that when an important case is pending, all those outside
the case tend to hold their fire until they find out the
results. Given the result, they had to go to option two
or three of their explicit policy.

Before the Bakke decision medical school admis—

sions committees had long used multiple criteria in

 

81

selection of medical students which they believe will ful-
fill the goals and missions of their institutions. Such
factors include personal interviews, in addition to
academic achievement and scores on the Medical College
Admission Test. It is now clear that race can be one of
the factors to be considered. "We have a great diversity
in our medical schools, and thus each will give different
weight to the various criteria employed in admitting
students." The weightings change from one year to the
next to meet changing needs of society and advances in
medicine. "We are pleased that this approach appears to
fall within the court decision."1
Since most of the medical schools are using

admissions procedures which

. . . we feel fall within the views of the court,

we see little effect of the court's ruling on

the school's affirmative action programs. The

court's decision that race may be used as a fac-

tor in admissions removes some past uncertainties

and should stimulate efforts to increase the admis-
sions of underrepresented minorities.2

Discussion

 

It is very difficult to determine actual admis-
sions policies to medical schools. The written policies

that were reviewed by the researcher tend to be stated

 

1John A. D. Cooper, M.D., Ph.D., "The Bakke
Decision," Journal of Medical Education 53 (1978): 776-777.

2

 

Ibid.

82

in a broad manner which make it difficult to establish any
system by which the effectiveness of the policies could be
evaluated. As indicated in the prior review, the actual
decision, whether to admit (n: not to admit a student
rests very heavily on the interview process. This process
is conducted in private and the actual basis upon which a
decision is made is not made public for review.

As noted in Chapter IV, the University of Califor-
nia at Davis, at which the case occurred, did not respond
to the letter sent by the researcher. As a result, it
was impossible to determine whether and to what extent
admissions policies have changed pre- and post-Bakke,
regarding nonexplicit public policy and implicit policy.

Prior to the decision, medical schools may not
have had quota systems, and since that was what the
Bakke case said was unconstitutional, and that the con-
sideration of race was constitutional in other formats,
nothing had to be changed.

In this dissertation, from the data gathered, the
researcher may assume that medical schools have adopted
a policy such as follows: that a school could take the
position that race Or minority status is an important .
factor among others in admissions decisions, but not have

a quota.

 

83

Concluding Observations for Discussion

 

The reverse discrimination discussed in the

Regents of the University of CaliforniaXL.Bakke, 98 S. Ct.

 

2733,

1978,

1.

seems to reveal five considerations:

If possible, courts will avoid definitive
statements on the constitutionality and
legality of preferential admissions, pre-
sumably because they lack unambiguous guid-
ance from the United States Supreme

Court.

Private institutions are no longer well-
insulated against challenges involving
preferential treatment.

Courts generally view quite Skeptically

any special admissions practices resembling
a quota.

Courts are more sympathetic to preferen-
tial treatment in the presence of hard evi-
dence of past discrimination by the insti-
tution.

Courts will look at the case with which

an institution has designed its special
admissions program; a high standard of
professionalism in implementing such

programs should be maintained.

 

84

Under these circumstances, it is not at all
clear what educators might do to make race-conscious
admissions programs pass judicial muster, but Mr. Bakke
helped shed some more light on what constitutes permis-

sible programs reviewing admissions policies.

Implications for Further Research

 

In an effort to reverse the impacts of discrim-
ination and the underrepresentation and undertuiliza-
tion of minority talents, special programs have been
developed to compensate for past deprivation and to
ensure greater access to employment and educational
opportunities.

In this dissertation what is not known is whether
there has been a change in admissions policies to medical
schools before and after the Bakke decision regarding non-
public explicit policy and implicit policy. This is the
rationale on which further research is needed. The only
viable possibility would be a case study or series of case
studies to research these two types of policies.

Further research might also suggest that the
United States Supreme Court be examined to see if deci-
sions in the academic arena are appropriate for the
strictest constitutional review.

The final point of further research might suggest

a closer examination of the constitution to precisely

 

85

determine whether the Bakke decision was in direct or
indirect conflict with the language of the Fourteenth

Amendment.

 

APPENDICES

86

APPENDIX A

 

AMICI BRIEFS IN THE BAKKE CASE

87

APPENDIX A

AMICI BRIEFS IN THE BAKKE CASE

Following is a list of the individuals and organi-

zations that filed "friend of the court" briefs in the

case of University of California Regents v. Bakke when

 

the case was argued on October 12, 1977. California
appealed from the decision of its own supreme court hold—
ing unconstitutional an admission plan at the Davis campus
of the University of California that reserved sixteen of
one hundred places in the medical school for Chicanos,

blacks, and members of certain other nonwhite minorities.

In Support of Allan Bakke:

 

American Federation of Teachers (AFL—CIO)

American Jewish Committee

American Jewish Congress

American Subcontractors Association

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A.

Committee on Academic Nondiscrimination and Integrity

Conference of Pennsylvania State Police Lodges of the
Fraternal Order of Police

Council of Supervisors and Administrators of the City
of New York

Fraternal Order of Police

Ralph J. Galliano (unsuccessful white applicant to
University of Florida law school)

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois

Timothy J. Hoy (student at Oberlin, planning to apply
to law school this year)

International Association of Chiefs of Police

88

89

International Conference of Police Associations
Italian-American Foundation

Jewish Labor Committee

Jewish Rights Council

Mid-America Legal Foundation

National Advocates Society

National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs
National Medical and Dental Association

Order of the Sons of Italy in America

Pacific Legal Foundation

Polish-American Affairs Council

Polish American Congress

Polish-American Educators Association

Queens Jewish Community Council

Ukranian Congress Committee of America (Chicago Division)
UNICO National

Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California

Young Americans for Freedom

In Support of the University Of California

 

American Association of University Professors

American Bar Association

American Civil Liberties Union

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California

American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities

American Federation Of State, County, and Municipal
Employees (AFL-CIO)

American Indian Bar Association

American Indian Law Center

American Indian Law Students Association

American Medical Student Association

American Public Health Association

Americans for Democratic Action

Asian-American Bar Association of the Greater Bay Area

Aspira of Americas (national organization of Puerto
Rican educators and students)

Association of American Law Schools

Association of American Medical Colleges

Association of Mexican American Educators

Bar Association of San Francisco

Black Law Students Association at U. of California at
Berkeley

Black Law Students Union of Yale Univ. law school

Board of Governors of Rutgers, the State University of
New Jersey

Children's Defense Fund

 

90

Cleveland State U. Chapter of Black American Law Students
Association

Columbia

University

Council on Legal Education Opportunity

County of Santa Clara, Cal.

Fair Employment Practices Commission of the State of
California

GI Forum

Harvard University
Howard University

Image

Internationa Union Of Electric,

Radio, and Machine Workers

(AFL-CIO)
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
Japanese American Citizens League
Jerome A. Lackner, Director of California Dept. of Health.
LaRaza National Lawyers Association
Law School Admissions Council

Lawyers'

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

League of United Latin American Citizens

Legal Services Corp.

Los Angeles County Bar Association

Los Angeles Mecha Central

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Mexican-American Political Association

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund

National
National

Association for the Advancement of Colored People
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher

Education

National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National

Native American Law Students of the U.

Davis

Native American Student Union of the U.

Davis

Association of Minority Contractors

Bar Association

Council of ChurchescflfChrist in the U.S.A.
Council of La Raza

Council of Negro Women

Education Association

Employment Law Project

Fund for Minority Engineering Students
Health Law Program

Lawyers' Guild

Legal Aid and Defender Association
Medical Association

Organization for Women

Urban League

of California at

of California at

North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers

91

Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund

Rutgers Law School Alumni Association

Society of American Law Teachers

Stanford University

State of Washington and University of Washington

Student Bar Association of Rutgers School of Law--Newark

UCLA Black Law Students' Association

UCLA Black Law Alumni Association

Union of Women's Alliance to Gain Equality

Unitas

United Farm Workers of America (ALF-CIO)

United Mine Workers of America

University of Pennsylvania

U.S. National Student Association

John Vasconcellos (Democratic Member of the California
Assembly)

Marion J. Woods, director of California Dept. of Benefit
Payments

Young Women's Christian Association

 

 

1Chronicle of Higher Education, September 19, 1977.

 

APPENDIX B

MINORITY STUDENT INFORMATION BY INDIVIDUAL

U.S. MEDICAL SCHOOLS

92

TABLE B.1.--Minority student information by individual U.S. medical
schools

 

Minority Enrollment, Fall 1980a

 

. . Mainland
. Black American MeXican
Medical School . . . Puerto
American Indian American . b
Rican

 

3708/1128 221/67 951/258 329/95

 

Alabama

Alabama, South
Albany

Albert Einstein
Arizona

Arkansas

Baylor

Boston University
Bowman Gray

Brown

California, University

of Davis
Irvine
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Francisco
California, Southern
Caribe-Cayey
Case-Western Reserve
Chicago Medical
Chicago-Pritzker
Cincinnati
Colorado
Columbia
Connecticut
Cornell

Creighton

35/10
8/3
6/2

14/3
1/1

37/15

24/4

51/15

30/15

20/6

8/1
21/3
40/9
20/11
45/13
21/5

0/0
56/12
19/2

8/1
58/19
13/4
22/5
10/2
27/4
17/6

93

1/0
0/0
0/0
2/1
3/1
3/1
2/1
2/1
7/1
0/0

3/1
2/0
0/0
5/2
4/0
0/0
0/0
2/1
0/0
0/0
0/0
10/3
0/0
0/0
1/1
1/1

0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
15/2
1/0
48/20
9/1
2/0
1/0

14/2
52/15
39/9
22/7
45/5
26/7
0/0
5/0
0/0
2/0
2/1
50/15
0/0
0/0
7/1
17/3

0/0
1/0
3/1
7/4
1/0
0/0
0/0
20/2
3/0
6/2

0/0
2/0
1/0
0/0
6/1
0/0
5/3c
2/0
0/0
1/1
1/0
0/0
9/3
6/3
9/3
1/0

 

TABLE B.1.--Continued

94

 

Minority Enrollment, Fall 1980a

 

 

 

Medical School Black American Mexican ::::::nd
American Indian American Ricanb
3708/1128 221/67 951/258 329/95
Dartmouth 10/5 4/0 2/2 0/0
Duke 34/12 2/1 0/0 1/1
East Carolina 17/10 2/2 0/0 0/0
Emory 21/6 0/0 0/0 1/0
Florida 41/14 0/0 0/0 1/0
Florida, South 6/5 0/0 0/0 0/0
Georgetown 31/11 2/0 1/0 2/1
George Washington 28/7 2/0 1/0 l/l
Georgia 31/10 1/0 0/0 1/0
Hahnemann 38/14 1/1 3/1 5/3
Harvard 71/18 4/2 22/6 16/2
Hawaii 1/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Howard 378/104 0/0 0/0 1/0
Illinois 83/29 2/0 21/10 4/1
Illinois, Southern 18/6 1/1 1/0 0/0
Indiana 30/11 2/0 2/1 1/0
Iowa 19/5 1/0 8/5 2/1
Jefferson 33/5 7/2 9/1 8/2
Johns Hopkins 31/15 1/0 3/2 0/0
Kansas 8/1 2/0 5/0 1/0
Kentucky '12/6 0/0 0/0 0/0
Loma Linda 12/4 2/1 0/0 0/0
Louisiana--New Orleans 25/8 1/0 7/0 0/0
Louisiana--Shreveport 12/8 2/0 0/0 1/1
Louisville 20/7 1/0 1/0 0/0

 

95

TABLE B.1.--Continued

 

Minority Enrollment, Fall 1980a

 

 

 

Medical School Black American Mexican gzigignd
American Indian American Ricanb
3708/1128 221/67 951/258 329/95
Loyola-Stritch 4/1 1/0 4/2 0/0
Marshall 0/0 1/1 0/0 0/0
Maryland 37/9 0/0 0/0 1/0
Massachusetts 15/2 0/0 0/0 4/1
Mayo 8/3 3/2 2/0 0/0
Meharry 440/143 6/2 5/1 0/0
Miami 14/4 0/0 1/1 1/0
Michigan State 45/9 1/0 17/3 6/4
Michigan, University of 60/26 4/2 2/0 0/0
Minnesota--DuluthC 0/0 1/0 0/0 0/0
Minnesota--Minneapolis 26/7 12/2 37/11 1/0
Mississippi 30/10 0/0 1/0 0/0
Missouri--Columbia 11/5 1/0 1/0 0/0
Missouri--Kansas City 19/3 4/2 5/0 0/0
Morehouse 42/25 0/0 0/0 1/0
Mount Sinai 22/7 0/0 2/0 12/3
Nebraska 5/4 4/3 2/1 0/0
Nevada--Reno 0/0 1/0 4/1 0/0
New Jersey: CMDNJ
New Jersey Medical 86/25 2/1 0/0 32/13
Rutgers 58/17 0/0 0/0 11/3
New Mexico 4/1 8/2 54/19 1/0
New York Medical 23/4 0/0 0/0 18/1
New York University 16/1 0/0 0/0 13/3
New York: SUNY Buffalo 31/7 0/0 3/1 7/1
Downstate 32/9 0/0 0/0 9/2
Stony Brook 15/4 0/0 0/0 8/1

 

 

TABLE B.l.--Continued

96

 

Minority Enrollment, Fall 1980a

 

 

 

Medical School Black American Mexican g:::::nd
American Indian American Ricanb
3798/1128 221/67 951/258 329/95

Upstate 21/7 1/1 1/0 0/0
North Carolina 82/23 5/2 0/0 2/1
North Dakota 0/0 11/5 0/0 0/0
Northwestern 25/5 0/0 0/0 0/0
Ohio Medical College of 24/12 2/2 4/2 1/1
Ohio, Northeastern

Universities 6/2 0/0 0/0 0/0
Ohio State 53/27 0/0 1/0 3/2
Oklahoma 13/4 15/2 5/0 2/0
Oral Roberts 1/1 1/0 0/0 0/0
Oregon 0/0 1/0 1/1 0/0
Pennsylvania, Medical

College of 9/2 2/1 0/0 0/0
Pennsylvania State 14/4 1/0 0/0 0/0
Pennsylvania, University of 41/12 0/0 3/0 1/0
Pittsburgh 28/14 0/0 0/0 0/0
Ponce 0/0 0/0 1/0 3/1e
Puerto Rico, University of 2/0 0/0 0/0 6/5e
Rochester 4/1 0/0 1/0 2/0
Rush 31/5 0/0 2/0 1/0
Saint Louis 18/4 2/1 2/1 0/0
South Carolina, Medical

University of 16/4 0/0 1/1 0/0
South Carolina, University

of 3/2 0/0 0/0 1/0
South Dakota 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Stanford 34/7 5/1 46/13 2/1
Temple 82/23 1/1 1/0 8/1

 

97

TABLE B.1.--Continued

 

Minority Enrollment, Fall 1980a

 

, , Mainland
. Black American Mex1can
Medical School , , . Puerto
American Indian American . b
Rican

 

3798/1128 221/67 951/258 329/95

 

Tennessee State, East 3/2 0/0 0/0 0/0
Tennessee, University of 11/3 1/0 0/0 0/0
Texas A&M 1/0 2/0 2/0 0/0
Texas University of Dallas 25/8 0/0 70/19 0/0
Galveston 22/6 1/1 52/13 4/2
Houston 10/6 1/1 26/8 1/0
San Antonio 12/2 3/0 59/11 0/0
Texas Tech 5/1 1/0 16/9 0/0
Tufts 51/20 3/1 5/3 9/3
Tulane 43/11 2/0 2/1 2/0
Uniformed Services Univ. 20/4 3/1 3/0 4/2
Utah 3/1 2/1 13/2 0/0
Vanderbilt 14/3 0/0 0/0 0/0
Vermont 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Virginia, Eastern 20/9 1/0 0/0 3/1
Virginia, Medical College of 36/9 0/0 2/1 0/0
Virginia, University of 17/6 0/0 0/0 0/0
Washington University

(St. Louis) 44/13 2/0 1/0 0/0
Washington, University of 7/0 5/0 15/5 l/0
Wayne State 82/17 1/1 2/2 3/2
West Virginia 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

Wisconsin, Medical
College of 28/7 5/1 22/7 6/1

Wisconsin,
University of 24/5 2/1 5/2 5/2

98

TABLE B.l.--Continued

 

Minority Enrollment, Fall 1980a

 

. . Mainland
. Black American Mex1can
Medical School . . . Puerto
American Indian American . b
Rican

 

3798/1128 221/67 951/258 329/95

 

Wright State 25/8 1/1 1/0 1/0

Yale 34/10 1/0 3/1 4/1

 

aThe first figure under each category is the total number of
minority students in the student body; the second figure is the
number of minority students in the 1980-81 first-year class (126
medical schools represented). Source of the data is the AAMC Fall
1980 Enrollment Questionnaire.

bFigures at each school except University Of Puerto Rico,
Ponce School of Medicine, and University del Caribe include stu-
dents who are mainland Puerto Rican residents only and not residents
of the commonwealth of Peurto Rico.

cTwo-year basic science school.
d . .
In process of establishing a full M.D. degree program.
eFigures represent students who are residents of the commonwealth
of Puerto Rico. These figures are not included in the grant totals

figure.

Source: Association of American Medical Colleges Staff for
Medical School Admission Requirements 1982-83. Washington, D.C.,
pp. 49-58.

 

APPENDIX C

LETTER TO 126 MEDICAL SCHOOLS

99

 

December 10, 1981

James A. Berlowe

% Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker
Dept. of Administration
and Curriculum

412 Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI. 48824

I am in the process of gathering data for my dissertation
at Michigan State University. My chairperson, Dr. Eldon
Nonnamaker, is directing my study along with Dr. Bruce
Miller. The title of my dissertation is: "CHANGES IN
ADMISSIONS POLICIES AT MEDICAL SCHOOLS BEFORE AND AFTER
THE BAKKE DECISION."

I would appreciate your assistance in sending me for the
year 1976 and for the current year, the following:

(a) application form for admissions, (b) statement of
admissions policies, and (c) any other relevant admissions
materials. I realize that there is usually a charge for
the receipt of this information. However, due to my
limited finances, I cannot sustain this fee. Since this
is for expanding my academic career, I would sincerely
appreciate your assistance. If you desire, please SO
indicate and I will send you results of my study.

Sincerely,

James Andrew Berlowe

100

 

APPENDIX D

AMCAS APPLICATION FOR 1982-83

ENTERING CLASS

101

 

TYPE THIS FORM USING A DARK BLACK RIBBON ONL Y

 

AMCASO APPLICATION FOR 1982-83 ENTERING CLASS

LSSNI—LJIIIIIII AMCASUL

 

 

2. Name

last rlrst middle will:

3. hrmanent Address

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

street city
4. Telephone
county state zip code area code number
5. Father (living l 1 deceased l 1) Mother (living 1 1 deceased l I) Guardian
Name
Occupation
State or
Residence
Education/
College
5. Ages or Your Brothers Aees or Your Sisters A!“ 0' Your Dependents
7. Secondary School L _
name dry state rim-—
I. A. All Undergraduate Colleges Attended um m chronological order) Check it Check ll
Dates or Summer Jr/Comrn. Degree Granted or
Institution Campus/Locatlon/State Attendance Only College Major Expected (with date)
re to re | I | I
re I‘D re I I I I
re to re I I I I
re to re I I I I
re to re I I I I
re to re I I )
B. All Graduate or Prolessional Schools Attended (Including previous Medical School)
re to re I I
re to re | 1
rs to re I |

 

 

9. What honors did you receive while in college? (Include honorary SOCIBIles)

 

 

 

10. In what extracurricular, community end/or evocational activities have you participated while in college or subsequently? (Include oches new)

 

 

 

 

 

It. If you have been employed during the reprlar school year while in college or graduate school spacily type of work and approximate hours per week:
A. Currently:

 

8. Previous to this year:
12. New have you spent your summers during college?

 

 

 

 

 

13. ll your education to date has not been continuous. indicate what you have done while not in school.

 

 

 

 

 

14. Were you ever required to leave any college or denied readmission for any reason? Yes I 1 No l l :1 answer is Yes. please explain why in Personal
Comments section or AMCAS Application

15. It you have had any military service complete the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Branch 0! Highest Entry Discharge
Service Rank Date Date
TYPE THIS FORM USING A DARK BLACK RIBBON ONLY. SEE AMCAS INSTRUCTION BOOKLET BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM.
This form IS most easuy completed using a 10 character per inch (pica) typewrller,
No. E-G. REV. 2/81 occ No 0422-01 - leer av assocumon or manner-n MEDICAL COLLEGES

102

830809 $0 303an SJAI .LON 00

 

DO NOT TYPE OUTSIDE OF BORDER

103

-2-

 

 

FOB 'ERSONAI. COHMENTS (See AMCAS Instruction Booklet pelore completing)

 

 

DO NOT 'fYPE BELOW BORDER

830800 50 BOISLDO BdAl 10M 00

 

104

-3.-
ACADEMIC RECORD

 

LUCA. UDI

ss~llnlnlll4J

LAST FIRST MIDDLE SUFFIX

2
or
3
re

ACADQMIC
STATUE
O'VOCIlk
OIHIONQ
HOV-0
ATTIW’

COURSE NAME

COLLEGE LOCATION

 

0° ~07 7"! BELOW BORDER This lorm is most easily completed using a IO character per inch (pica) typewriter.

330800 50 303100 ”M100! 00

   

105

ADIIIC
A'U’
COOIIIC
V1.-
‘IDCS'EI
“GUN!
ATV!

COLLEGE LOCATION COURSE NAME

GPAe mo cneon nouns SUMMA R Y TOTA LS SUPPLEMENTAL rants
NOT VERIFIED BY “OAS NOT VERIFIED IV “CA5

“‘"WC ALL OTHER TOTAL EXEMPTED COURSES/SPECIAL nouns tom nouns
'7‘ ‘ o'IICIAL oeIrcrnL
YlADeSCIr'V AMCAS vnnuscflrv‘v AucAs

ova .

rso” EXEMPTED (#I Pass/MIL nouns-Pass

R
G" _ __ cou SE5 5w roe aovmceo PLACEMENI
$0 cnmo
arou- 5 TOTAL
HOURS

FR

6 ' A _ . HONORS nouns CLEP HOURS

JR
nouns SPECIAL CUM UG HOURS

4.,” SESSION nouns

SR
noun 5 PASS/FAIL HOURS cum GRAD nouns

F
GPA AIL

PB

HOU res GRAND TOTAL HOURS
one

nouns - ' YES NO
WMBER OF MCAT HAVE YOU TAKEN OR 00 YOU PLAN TO

G R °" . 4 4 _ TESTS TAKEN. TAKE THE SEPTEMBER 1981 ppm

NO U I 5

U6

 

Informal-on regardmg my application to medical school may be provrded lo the ore-professional divisory units at the colleges IDOICBIEO on this application
Yes D No I i

l have read and urnerstand the lnsrrucrlons and other miormallon m the AMCAS Instruction Booklet I (efIIIV that the IDIOImaIlOD submnled m these applicat 0'1
materials rs complete and correct to the best of my knowledge

Date Signature

 

 

DO NOT TYPE BELOW BORDER

BIBLIOGRAPHY

106

‘

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Associations

 

Association of American Medical Colleges Staff for Medi-
cal School Admission Requirements 1982-83.
Washington, D.C. 20036.

American Medical College Application Service Instruction
Booklet for 1982-83 Entering Class, Division of
Student Services, Washington D.C. 20036

Chronicle of Higher Education, September 19, 1977.

 

Journals
Begun, M. S. "Legal Considerations Related to Minority
Group Recruitment and Admissions." Journal of

 

Medical Education 48 (1977): 556-559.

 

Char, W. F.; McDermott, J. F., Jr.; Hanning, W. F. 111.;
and Hansen, M. J. "Interviewing, Motivation,
and Clinical Judgement." Journal of Medical
Education 50 (1975): 192-194.

 

 

COOper, James. "The Bakke Decision." Journal of Medical
Education 53 (1978): 776-777.

 

 

 

Fruen, M. A. "Medical School Admissions Interview: Pro
and Con." Journal of Medical Education 55 (1980):
630.

Puryear, James B., and Lewis, Lloyd A. "Description of
the Interview Process in Selecting Students for
Admission to U.S. Medical Schools." Journal of

 

Medical Education 56 (1981): 882.

 

Books
Bayles, Michael. "Compensatory Reverse Discrimination in
Hiring." Social Theory and Practice 2 (1973):

 

301-312.

107

 

lO8
Bayles, Michael. "Reparation to Wronged Groups." Analy—
sis 33 (1973).

Bell, Derrick. Race Racism and American Law. Boston:
Little, Brown and Co., 1973.

 

Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education.
Selective Admissions in Higher Education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1977.

 

Chase, Allan. The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of

the New Scientific Racism. New York: Knopf,
1977.

 

 

Feinberg, Joel. "Justice and Personal Desert." Reprinted
in Doing and Deserving, 1970, pp. 55—94.

 

Feinberg, Joel. "Noncomparative Justice." Philosophical
Review 83 (1974): 297-338.

 

Ginger, Ann Fagen, ed. DeFunis v. Odegaard and the
University of Washington. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.:
Oceana Publications, 1974.

 

 

Glazer, Nathan. Affirmative Discrimination: Ethnic
Ineguality and Public Policy. New York: Basic
Books, 1975.

 

 

Goldman, Alan H. Justice and Reverse Discrimination.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1979.

 

Greenawalt, R. Kent. ”Discrimination and Reverse Discrim-
ination, Essay and Materials in Law and Philos0phy."
Commission on Undergraduate Education in Law and
the Humanities. American Bar Association, 1979.

Gross, Barry ed. Reverse Discrimination. Buffalo:
Prometheus, 1976.

 

Jones, F. C. The Changinngood in America: Eroding
Commitment? Washington, D.C.: Howard University
Press, 1977.

 

 

Katzner, Louis. "Presumptivist and Nonpresumptivist
Principles of Formal Justice." Ethnics 81
(1971): 253—58.

Kluger, Richard. Simple Justice. New York: KnOpf, 1976.

 

 

 

109

Lawrence, Charles III, and Dreyfuss, Joel. The Bakke
Case, The Politics of Inequality. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979.

 

Lockhart, William B.; Kamisar, Yale; Chopper, Jesse H.
Constitutional Law. 5th ed. St. Paul, Minn.:
West Publishing Company, 1980.

 

Lyons, David. "Mill's Theory of Justice." In Law,
Morality, and Society. Edited by P. M. S. Hacker
and J. Raz, 1977.

 

 

Nagel, Thomas. "Equal Treatment and Compensatory Discrim-
ination." Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (1973):
348—63.

National Urban League, "The State of Black America 1978."
New York, 1978.

 

 

Nelson, William N. "Special Rights, General Rights, and
Social Justice." Philosophy and Public Affairs 3
(1974).

Note, "Decline and Fall of the New Equal Protection: A
Polemical Approach." VA Law Review 58 (1972):
489.

Note, "Reverse Discrimination." 41 U. Cincinnati Law

 

Review 250 (1972).

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1971.

 

Scanlon, Timothy M., Jr. "Rawl's Theory of Justice."
121 U. Pa. Law Review 1020 (1973).

 

Symposium: Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and UtOpia.
Arizona Law Review, 1977.

Thomson, Judith J. "Preferential Hiring." Philosophy and
Public Affairs 2 (1973): 364-84.

 

 

Wasserstrom, Richard. "The University and the Case for
Preferential Treatment." American Philosophy
Quarterly 13 (1976).

 

 

Woozley, A. D. "Injustice." American Philosophical
Quarterly. Monograph No. 7, 1973, pp. 109-22.

 

 

 

110

Symposium

 

Bell, Derrick, A., Jr. "Bakke, minority admissions,
and the usual price of racial remedies."
Symposium entitled "Regents of the University

 

of California v. Bakke." California Law Review
pp. 3-20.
Blasi, Vincent. "Bakke as Precedent: Does Mr. Justice

Powerll have a Theory?" Symposium entitled,
"Regents of the University of California v.
Bakke." California Law Review, pp. 21-68.

 

Dixon, Robert G., Jr. "Bakke: A Constitutional Analy-
sis." Symposium entitled "Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke." California

 

Law Review, pp. 69-86.

 

Douglas, William 0. "Foreword." Symposium entitled
"Regents of the University of California v.
Bakke." California Law Review, pp. 1—2.

 

Greenawalt, R. Kent. "The Unresolved Problems of Reverse
Discrimination." Symposium entitled "Regents of
the University of California v. Bakke." Califor-
nia Law Review, pp. 87-130.

 

Henkin, Louis. "What of the Right to Practice a Profes-
sion." Symposium entitled "Regents of the Uni-
versity of California v. Bakke." California Law

 

Review, pp. 131-142.

O'Neil, Robert M. "Bakke in Balance: Some Preliminary
Thoughts." Symposium entitled "Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke." California

 

Law Review, pp. 143-170.

 

Posner, Richard A. "The Bakke Case and the Future of
Affirmative Action." Symposium entitled "Regents
of the University of California v. Bakke."
California Law Review, pp. 171—190.

 

 

1ICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
lllllWIWllllHIWNWllllllllllllllllllHHHlHlHHl
312931fl3892927