In Bakke, which statement about using race in admissions is accurate?

• A. Race cannot be considered at all in admissions.
• B. Race may be considered as one factor among many, but quotas are unconstitutional.
• C. Quotas must be set for each race.
• D. The policy must admit the top applicants regardless of race.

Answer: (B)

The concept being tested is how race may be used in admissions. Bakke held that race can be considered as one factor among many in a holistic admissions review, but fixed racial quotas are unconstitutional. In the decision, the Court struck down the specific program that set aside a fixed number of seats for minority applicants, yet it did not prohibit considering race altogether. So the accurate statement is that race may be part of a broader evaluation, but you cannot use quotas to guarantee or limit admissions for any group.

Why the other ideas don’t fit: race being off the table entirely is not correct because Bakke allows race to be a factor in a holistic process; having quotas for each race is exactly what the Court rejected; insisting that top applicants be admitted regardless of race ignores the permissible use of race as one factor to promote diversity within a broader framework.