Final answer:
The response to the Supreme Court's interpretation of affirmative action in Regents v. Bakke was mixed, with some seeing it as progress towards equality, while others viewed it as a step back from addressing racial injustices. The decision eliminated racial quotas but preserved the use of race as one factor among others in college admissions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Supreme Court's interpretation of affirmative action in Regents v. Bakke was met with mixed reactions across the United States. While the decision struck down the use of specific racial quotas, it did allow for race to be considered as one of many factors in college admissions, thus preserving affirmative action in a more limited form. Some viewed the decision as a necessary step towards achieving a more color-blind society, whereas others saw it as a retreat from the principles of correcting past injustices and battling the persistence of racism.
The Bakke decision heralded a series of legal challenges and debates concerning the role of race in academic admissions and employment. Cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger reaffirmed the decision, maintaining that race could be one of the factors in admission policies, provided that it is not used as a fixed quota. Other cases like Fisher v. University of Texas continued to scrutinize the application of affirmative action policies in higher education, ensuring these practices remained narrowly tailored and avoiding explicit quota systems.
Consequently, the Supreme Court's verdict in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke remains a significant reference point in understanding the evolving landscape of affirmative action within the United States' educational system and broader civil rights discourse.