The ADL, too, is primarily concerned with the issue of race, not affirmative action. "The only issue presented by this case," the ADL brief contends, "is whether the state University of California can utilize race as a determinative factor in the admission and exclusion of candidates for its medical school at Davis."

Harvard, in conjunction with several other universities, also filed a brief in favor of remanding or reversing the decision.

The brief expresses concern that the out-come of the Bakke case may indirectly affect Harvard's admissions practices, although "as an immediate matter a pro-Bakke decision would not affect Harvard, because private institutions do not fall under the 14th amendment," Daniel Steiner '54, general counsel to the University, said last week.

Harvard fears that a pro-Bakke decision might jeopardize the freedom universities now enjoy to select their own admissions procedures and develop their own means of overcoming discrimination. "The hopes induced by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, that within a generation racial inequalities in education would be eradicated, have not been realized. Universities need some elbow-room to experiment in their quest for solutions," the University's brief states.

Fears about the ramifications of the Bakke case are not confined to university admissions offices. Rep. Louis Stokes (D-Ohio), speaking last summer on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, said he fears the Bakke case may open the door for a reversal of the civil rights gains of the '60s.

"It is time now to recognize that there is much opposition in this nation to policies designed to gain equality in our society for minorities and for women," Stokes said. "The opposition is largely political. It takes the form of creating in the body politic the sense and belief that minority groups have gained too much and have gone too far in their quest for equality." Stokes added.

"The Bakke case," he continued, "has both stimulated the negative view of affirmative action and, if Mr. Bakke's effort is successful, stands to set back the legal tools for enforcing civil rights laws. That is, the Bakke case helps to create the political climate that makes legislation to restrict civil rights palatable."

The Bakke case has already affected affirmative action. Last Sunday, a federal district court judge in Los Angeles declared unconstitutional a recently passed Federal employment act requiring at least 10 per cent of some government construction spending be reserved for companies owned by members of minority groups. In supporting his decision, the judge cited the Bakke case, declaring racial quotas "invidious and unconstitutional."

William Segal '79, a member of the Boston Committee Against the Bakke Decision, said the Bakke case is part of a nationwide vffort to reverse the gaihs minority students made at colleges and universities in the past decade.

Although the Bakke case raises painfully relevant issues affecting numerous sectors of our society, in many respects the case provides a murky medium for deliberation.

On the one hand, Bakke was, in the words of the U.C. Davis brief, "a highly rated applicant who came close to admission." In almost every numerical category (MCAT test scores, grades, etc.) Bakke faired better than the mean scores for both special and regular admittees.

His age--he was 33 at the time of his first application--may have played some role in his rejection. As Lowrey wrote in reply to a letter from Bakke in 1971, two years before he actually applied, "when an applicant is over 30, his age is a serious factor which must be seriously considered."

Moreover, as Ralph R. Smith, assistant professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, charges, there were between 32 and 35 persons each year who "would have been considered ahead of Bakke, even if the 16 task force slots were not set aside."

The integrity of the special admissions program has also come under fire. Like many medical schools, U.C. Davis usually reserves up to five places in its entering class for the dean to fill at his discretion. Critics charge these positions often go to less qualified applicants from influential families.

In addition, organizations such as the National Committee to Overturn the Bakke Decision (NCOBD) have accused U.C. Davis of colluding with Bakke and the California courts, with the ultimate purpose of losing the case.