Cleveland State Law Review Volume 64 Issue 3 Article 7 6-1-2016 Replay That Tune: Defending Bakke on Stare Decisis Grounds Charles Adside III University of Michigan Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Law Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Charles Adside III, Replay That Tune: Defending Bakke on Stare Decisis Grounds, 64 Clev. St. L. Rev. 519 (2016) available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol64/iss3/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. REPLAY THAT TUNE: DEFENDING BAKKE ON STARE DECISIS GROUNDS CHARLES ADSIDE, III ABSTRACT The announcement from the United States Supreme Court to reconsider Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher I)1 presents an opportunity to revisit Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which controls affirmative action jurisprudence. This Article argues that Bakke is immune from reversal under stare decisis principles, because the use of race in admission programs is deeply engrained in our constitutional law. The Court's race ideologues seek, however, to alter Bakke to reflect their vision of racial equality. In Fisher II, the Court should not change its jurisprudence to reflect any doctrinal extreme. Arguing that Bakke was incorrectly decided is not enough to justify reversal. Stare decisis doctrine requires that opponents offer a prudential reason to overturn it.