Grantland Johnson, national organizer for the NCOBD, said last week the special program "was established because of the intense pressure Davis fell under during the '60s civil rights protest movement.

"It was U.C. Davis--not Bakke--who raised the question of the constitutionality of the program. Why did they do that? They did not want to win this case. U.C. Davis wants to see this kind of program--not only at U.C., but all over--buried," Johnson charged.

In support of his charge of collusion, Johnson cited the agreement U.C. Davis made with Bakke to hold a limited hearing rather than a full trial, thereby restricting the material available for any subsequent appeal. In so doing, the university precluded presenting to the court certain facts--such as the university's poor minority admissions record prior to the creation of the special program--facts that would have helped justify the special admissions program to the court.

In addition, Peter Storandt, an assistant to Lowrey at the time of Bakke's second rejection, encouraged Bakke to file suit against U.C. Davis, by reinforcing Bakke's belief that the university passed him up for less qualified students.

"It's pretty clear that Storandt couldn't have operated without the knowledge of other administrators," Johnson said.

Answering the charges of collusion, Cahn said he considered them largely irrelevant. "The question is not, 'What did they intend,' but 'What can come out of this case?" Cahn said.

The limited trial record will not necessarily prevent the Supreme Court from passing judgement on this case. Cahn said, owing to the volume of information that has since come into the public record. There is no hard-and-fast rule as to what a Supreme Court justice can take notice of, Cahn said, adding "the Court's willihgness to take in the amici curiae briefs is an indication that the Court may be willing to make certaih decisions now."

What kinds of decisions? "The Court may go out of its way and knock out quotas, or it may go the other route and legitimize the use of racially-conscious material," Cahn suggested. And if the Court remands the case to trial court, it may place guidelines on the lower court, as to the kind of questions and information it should consider.

However the Court rules, the issues surrounding the Bakke case will undoubtedly continue to perplex American social institutions in the near future.

[This is the first of a two-part series of articles about the Bakke case, which comes before the Supreme Court today.]