Faculty perspective: Before Bakke

Updated 1:00 PM September 29, 2003

Faculty perspective: Before Bakke

By Dr. Robert Green
Professor emeritus of internal medicine and former associate dean of the Medical School

The Supreme Court has affirmed the principle that race can be an acceptable factor in University admissions. Its justification is the educational value of a diverse student body, as originally established legally in Bakke (1978). It specifically approved the approach used by our Law School. The Medical School was one of the first University units to establish a formal affirmative action program. Our approach was similar to the Law School's; our justifications were quite different. My purpose is to present them, and to discuss why we at the time viewed Bakke as a defeat for the principles involved.

During the '60s many of us had become aware, at a deeper level, of the extent to which Blacks had been and still were disadvantaged, excluded and discriminated against in our society. Our increasing awareness included knowledge that Blacks were woefully underrepresented among the physicians in our country and state. We reviewed our past admission records and process to see if Blacks had been screened out or unfairly evaluated. We did not find unfair discrimination. Nevertheless, the number of individuals we admitted had been woefully small and the number of Black physicians in the state disproportionately low. It was thought-provoking that many we had rejected had succeeded in other medical schools and many were now practicing in our state.

"Our increasing awareness included knowledge that Blacks were woefully underrepresented among the physicians in our country and state." —Dr. Robert Green

A clear purpose of a state-supported medical school was to ensure a supply of physicians for the state. We looked at the overall population and physician distribution in Michigan. The result was instructive. Detroit was undersupplied and its practicing physicians almost exclusively Black; most of the practicing physicians in the underserved Upper Peninsula had been born and raised there. We felt these distributional factors should be valid considerations for individual applicants.

Our goals and justification in thinking about modifying our admissions process were thus clear and explicit—first, we would contribute, in a small way, to an attempt to remedy prior and present social injustice. We also would perform a needed action for our state in supplying physicians who might contribute to the improvement of physician distribution for underserved areas and populations. To achieve diversity in the student body was not a major goal, although a positive idea. We did think that if relatively nontraditional students were successful, the impact upon faculty, student and public attitudes might be affected. We also considered that the admission process itself might be broadened and a more diverse brand of physicians offered to society.

The complexities of the admission process, which included many non "merit-based" factors, and the difficulty of predicting success or failure within Medical School, had convinced us of the principle that no individual applicant, no matter what the strengths of any aspect of admission credentials, had an individual "right" to admission. This was true for any group, such as applicants with a specific academic record or applicants from a specific college.

This point became particularly apparent at the end of the admission year. Medical schools had a finite number of places and each created an alternate or waiting list. If accepted applicants withdrew before matriculation, their spots were filled from among the many alternates with similar qualifications.

Briefly, the key element in our approach was the concept of the "qualified pool"—the large body of applicants whose academic records were likely to predict "success"—the ability to graduate with the M.D. degree. We found many students within the qualified pool had been screened out by a system which started with the highest grade point averages and MCAT scores and did not look until later or perhaps not at all at those at lower levels. We changed that approach, especially for Black students, for Native Americans and for applicants from the Upper Peninsula. We did not entertain the possibility of admitting individuals we considered "unqualified"—admission was limited to individuals who had a reasonable chance to graduate with the M.D. degree.

Our program came under attack from the start. Its opponents included some on our own faculty. Arguments against it included many heard today, especially that any consideration of race in any shape or form was inappropriate and illegal; some suggested that those with higher grades "owned" positions in the class, and that if "less qualified" individuals were admitted, it would be at their specific expense, as their place had been taken. Our program and the programs at other medical schools were encouraged by the Association of American Medical Colleges. One of our colleagues, reluctantly accepting the need for our program, commented that, hopefully, within 25 years the program no longer would be necessary—shades of Justice O'Connor!

We expected an eventual legal challenge, and such came in Bakke. Most of us viewed Bakke as a major defeat for two reasons. We understood that the specific quota system at the Davis Medical School had been what was declared unconstitutional, but as the justification and goals of most of the national programs were similar, we thought the quota itself was not the major reason for the defeat but rather that the concept of affirmative action had been vanquished. As disturbing to many of us, however, was that the decision appeared to establish the principle that one person, in this case Allan Bakke, could claim to "own" a position in the class by virtue of his record and by virtue of his having sued. This was a major blow. We knew, realistically, that if one student admitted under the "quota" had not been admitted, Bakke or any other specific individual might very well not have been chosen, as the competition was so great. It seemed to us, if carried to its logical conclusion, that only academic records could now absolutely strictly be considered, and that any room for individual judgment had flown out the window. We did not realize at first that the window had not been closed by Justice Powell, whose opinion that race could be a factor actually was supportive of our positions, even if only because it permitted diversity in the classroom.

Current developments establish diversity as the primary and acceptable goal. So be it. I remain disturbed, however, and unwilling to accept the concept that a single individual can gain admission by claiming discrimination against him or her because any other individual's specific admission deprived him or her of a "rightful" place in the class.

The Faculty Perspectives page is an outlet for faculty expression provided by the Senate Assembly. Any member of the University Senate is eligible to submit a Faculty Perspectives essay. Prospective contributors are invited to contact the Faculty Perspectives Page Committee at faculty.perspectives.page@umich.edu Submissions are accepted in electronic form and are subject to review by the committee. Essay lengths are restricted to one full printed page in The University Record, or about 1,500 words. Past Faculty Perspectives can be accessed through the Faculty Governance Web page at http: //www.umich.edu/~sacua/.

Faculty perspective: Before Bakke

More Stories