Affirmative action has been fragile since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). Back then (if I may simplify), the Court ruled that race-based quotas were illegal, but permitted race to be taken into account as a "plus factor" in admissions. Increasingly over the last two and a half decades the rationale for that plus factor has been "diversity." Diversity, in fact, is the stated rationale behind the University of Michigan’s modus operandi. Unfortunately for proponents of affirmative action, "diversity" has always been a vague concept–and it has never been clear whether, as a matter of law, it was sufficient grounds for flirting with racial discrimination against majorities. In Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986), a plurality found against an affirmative action program justified on the grounds of diversity. And in the current controversy over the University of Michigan, many conservatives–including Florida Gov. Jeb Bush–have taken Wygant as a starting point for rejecting the diversity rationale. In an amicus curiae brief of his own, filed last week, the Florida governor noted: "This Court specifically indicated that such a theory has no logical stopping point, and would allow discriminatory practices long past the point required by any legitimate remedial purpose… Racial diversity is no more compelling a goal in the higher education context than in the context of other institutions or areas of state decision making."
The root problem is the notion that higher education is not only best-served, but absolutely requires, diversity of races in student populations. As a matter of logic, the goal of such diversity sounds a dell knell to all of the "predominantly black" colleges and universities that are a part of what make this country great. An education at a "predominantly black" college or university would, by definition, be substandard and inadequate, as compared to any other institution which happens to admit a larger percentage of whites or other "non-blacks".
The basic premise that diversity is not only good, but a compelling need, is deeply-flawed and must be rejected by the SCOTUS.
This doesn't sound like a defense of diversity for the sake of diversity to me. It sounds like a defense of the concept of equal opportunity. It uses that smarmy litle D word, but there's nothing here that really bugs me.
The author's main concern seems to be the demographic results of Affirmative Action, not the principals behind it.