Was the Bakke decision a complete victory for supporters or opponents of affirmative action? Explain your reasoning, referencing at least one subsequent case.

The Bakke decision, officially Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), was not a complete victory for either supporters or opponents of affirmative action. The decision was complex and had elements that both sides could claim as a partial victory.

In this case, Allan Bakke, a white man, sued the University of California, Davis, after his application to its medical school was twice rejected, while the school admitted less qualified individuals through a program that set aside seats for minority students. Bakke contended that he was a victim of racial discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a split decision. The key points were: 1. The Court held that the university's use of racial quotas in its affirmative action program was unconstitutional. This was seen as a victory for opponents of affirmative action because it struck down the quota system that the university's affirmative action program used. 2. However, the Court also found that race could be used as one of several criteria in the admissions process to foster diversity in higher education, essentially upholding the principle of affirmative action. This part of the decision was seen as a victory for supporters of affirmative action.

The result of Bakke was nuanced: while it rejected the notion of strict racial quotas, it allowed for race-conscious admissions policies, provided they were part of a holistic review of an applicant's file.

Extra: Subsequent cases have continued to shape the landscape of affirmative action in the United States. One significant case was Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), where the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action policy, which considered race as a "plus factor" within a holistic review of an applicant. The Court deemed this approach consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause as long as it aimed to achieve a diverse student body and evaluated each applicant individually rather than using a quota system. This decision reinforced the Bakke ruling by allowing for race-conscious admissions policies without explicit quotas.

Another related case was Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), in which the Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy because it was too mechanical in its use of race as a factor, thus resembling a quota system.

These cases illustrate the fine line that institutions need to navigate: they can consider race as one factor among many in their admissions processes but cannot employ rigid systems that resemble quotas or give automatic points or preferences based on race alone. The overall intent of affirmative action policies, to create diverse educational environments and provide opportunities to historically marginalized groups, remains a contentious and evolving issue in the realm of U.S. education and law.