What did the Supreme Court hold about racial quotas in Bakke?

• A. The university's use of racial 'quotas' in its admissions process was unconstitutional.
• B. The university must admit a quota of minority students.
• C. The university may use quotas but only with federal approval.
• D. The university's admissions policy was upheld.

Answer: (A)

Racial quotas fix a set number of admission slots for certain racial groups, which the Court ruled violates equal protection. In Bakke, the University of California had set aside a portion of medical school seats exclusively for minority applicants. That rigid, numerical allocation treated people differently based on race in a way that the Constitution does not permit, so it was struck down.

Importantly, the Court also signaled that race can be a factor in admissions, as part of a broader, holistic review aimed at achieving diversity, but it cannot be used as a hard quota. This means the decision allows considering race as one element among many, rather than assigning fixed quotas to groups.

So the best answer reflects that fixed racial quotas in admissions are unconstitutional, even though race may be considered in a broader, non-quota approach to admissions.