ABSTRACT
In tracing the trajectory of the Court’s approach toward ‘race-neutral’ policies and practices that produce racially disparate impacts, the Court’s methodology outlining what it considers discrimination is important. For disproportionate harm cases, discrimination was defined by intent, purpose, and malice. United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg v. Carey (UJO) was the first case where the Court adjudicated the constitutionality of race-based affirmative action. In UJO, several voting districts in New York City were reapportioned under a 1972 plan with the goal of guaranteeing at least a 65% non-White voting majority. New York’s motivation was to prevent racial minorities from being repeatedly outvoted by majority White populations in assembly and senate districts. The dispute in UJO centered on New York’s attempt to ensure and increase non-White political participation in senate and assembly elections. Bakke was predicated on the University of California, Davis’ attempt to increase minority representation in its medical school.
