Two broad messages emerge from the case of The Regents of the University of California vs. Allan Bakke: (1) there is a need for strengthening the "soft" or difficult-to-quantify data used in admissions decisions; and (2) there is a need to implement concepts of educational due process in the admissions procedure. These two exist in some tension with each other. It is often the soft data that is hidden from public view in the procedure, and this secrecy can cloak unreliable or arbitrary actions. On the other hand, it is this data that can help avoid narrow, wooden decisions in admissions. Efforts to improve both areas must be pursued as parallel efforts, since both are necessary to maintain institutional vitality and public confidence in the admissions process. (Author/MSE)