In my initial post about the oral arguments in the two Supreme Court cases challenging race-based preferences in college admissions, I speculated that the Justices might divide three ways in these cases.
How did "diversity" get to be a compelling governmental interest? Really, how? Because Powell said so? To my way of thinking, it is not only not a compelling governmental interest; it's a moderately valuable interest at best. The notion that a student body should "look like America" is just bizarre. It makes next to no difference what it looks like. It makes plenty of difference what its levels of achievement and excellence are, and admission policies should be designed to promote those virtues. If CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT they can promote others, like sports or legacy admissions, fine with me, but obsession with what the student body looks like is just nonsense, not to mention toxic and inherently wrong.
Attorneys for Harvard and UNC argue that diversity is a compelling state interest because they must. Whether they or the universities believe that is irrelevant. More interesting is that in response to repeated questioning attorneys for the universities would not answer when asked to define and justify specific educational benefits that accrue from racial and ethnic diversity - a property (diversity) they steadfastly refused to define when invited to do so. This unwillingness to address direct questions from the justices concerning definitions and benefits should make for interesting discussions in chambers. No? Presumably attorneys, if not the universities they represent, gave some thought to this before arguments. How strong is your argument when you can't define, much less quantify, the foundation on which sits the object you defend? And, you had 5 hours to do so. I doubt this will go unnoticed in chambers.
How did "diversity" get to be a compelling governmental interest? Really, how? Because Powell said so? To my way of thinking, it is not only not a compelling governmental interest; it's a moderately valuable interest at best. The notion that a student body should "look like America" is just bizarre. It makes next to no difference what it looks like. It makes plenty of difference what its levels of achievement and excellence are, and admission policies should be designed to promote those virtues. If CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT they can promote others, like sports or legacy admissions, fine with me, but obsession with what the student body looks like is just nonsense, not to mention toxic and inherently wrong.
Attorneys for Harvard and UNC argue that diversity is a compelling state interest because they must. Whether they or the universities believe that is irrelevant. More interesting is that in response to repeated questioning attorneys for the universities would not answer when asked to define and justify specific educational benefits that accrue from racial and ethnic diversity - a property (diversity) they steadfastly refused to define when invited to do so. This unwillingness to address direct questions from the justices concerning definitions and benefits should make for interesting discussions in chambers. No? Presumably attorneys, if not the universities they represent, gave some thought to this before arguments. How strong is your argument when you can't define, much less quantify, the foundation on which sits the object you defend? And, you had 5 hours to do so. I doubt this will go unnoticed in chambers.