Tweet
Skimming through the opinions, I see some interesting things.
1st, the main reason why O'Conner backs the law school policy, but NOT the undergrad's policy is because of 'individualized review of applicants'. Under the law school's application policy, every applicant is reviewed individually and race might be a boost to his application. Diversity qualifications are considered on a case-by-case basis. In the undergrad case, it is simply 20 points for being an underrepresented minority. There is little, if any, individualized review of applicants under this system. Diversity qualifications are applied automatically to everyone that falls under the catagory in undergrad.
Therefore the undergrad's policy is NOT narrowly tailored to the compelling governmental interest in diversity (Grutter, ie the law school case, held that diversity is a compelling interest), while the law school's is (because it is individualized and may not always apply).
Another consideration (and one that sways Rehnquist as well) is that while race counts for 20 points, other 'diversity' classifications such as leadership or art talent, etc. only can account for, at most, 5 points. So race counts FOUR times more than the maximum non-minority talented individual can recieve as a boost (even if he is the next Beethoven or Monet).
1st, the main reason why O'Conner backs the law school policy, but NOT the undergrad's policy is because of 'individualized review of applicants'. Under the law school's application policy, every applicant is reviewed individually and race might be a boost to his application. Diversity qualifications are considered on a case-by-case basis. In the undergrad case, it is simply 20 points for being an underrepresented minority. There is little, if any, individualized review of applicants under this system. Diversity qualifications are applied automatically to everyone that falls under the catagory in undergrad.
Therefore the undergrad's policy is NOT narrowly tailored to the compelling governmental interest in diversity (Grutter, ie the law school case, held that diversity is a compelling interest), while the law school's is (because it is individualized and may not always apply).
Another consideration (and one that sways Rehnquist as well) is that while race counts for 20 points, other 'diversity' classifications such as leadership or art talent, etc. only can account for, at most, 5 points. So race counts FOUR times more than the maximum non-minority talented individual can recieve as a boost (even if he is the next Beethoven or Monet).
.
.
Grades? Aside from the fact no institution ever really trusts another institutions grades (due to rampant inflation) most grades are inherently subjective. Even math and science (if you are giving partial credit on problems or asking theoretical questions) admit a strong subjective factor. So where is the merit? Come on all you crackers crying about merit, give it a definition!
Comment