"Positive steps to enhance the diversity of some group, often to remedy the cumulative effect of subtle as well as gross expressions of prejudice. When numerical goals are set, they are set according to the group's representation in the applicant pool rather than the group's representation in the general population. For example, a medical school with an affirmative action program would seek to admit members of an underrepresented group in proportion to their representation in the population of those who had completed pre-medical requirements and wished to attend medical school. Affirmative action should be distinguished from reparations."
The reason that U of M won the case is because it wasn't affirmative action at all. There were no numerical quotas, and their purpose of the diversity being sought was not "to remedy the cumulative effect of subtle as well as gross expressions of prejudice", but rather to enhance the collegiate ambiance.
It simply was not what you wanted it to be.
The Uof M, affirmative action policy was to reward students a set of points to get in. If you were a minority you recieved 20 points, while if your white you receive no points. A good essay is only 10 points. So are you saying minorities just because the color of their skin should get 20 points more that white students?
Enhance the experience such BS. What does race have to do with that. What about diversity of ideas. Nope just more group think liberal mumbo jumbo, that you try to pass off as conservative. Look I think Gonzlas was picked because of the good ol boy system and him being hispanic was just icing on the cake for Bush. So, you can argue and I can argue back and forth and not agree. 17 does not equal mature (this defintion was left up to the courts in a poorly written piece of legislation that encouraged the courts to interpret it) and Gonzales is pro Affirmative Action. Pro Affirmative Action combined with the border policy is bad IMHO. And first the AG then the Supreme Court.