Not quite. Under the U of M system, it was theoretically possible for not a single minority to get admitted. They still had to have enough points for the 20 extra points to get them to the threshold for admission. So in that sense, it's less pernicious than a pure quota system. And normally, I'd agree that the undergrad opinion would mean the death-knell for quotas of any kind. But honestly, with O'Connor being the swing vote, I wouldn't bet my house on it. Suppose it would have been only 3 points instead of 20. I'm not at all confident that O'Connor (at least) comes out the same.
With preferences on the other hand, its more subjective and presumably every one's chances remain more or less equal. At least that's how the SCOTUS presumably saw it.
I agree, though its interesting to note what "SCOTUS" actually thought. 3 justices thought that quotas are okay. 4 justices thought that neither quotas nor preferences are okay. And only two split the baby and thought that preferences are okay but quotas are not. And of those three groups of opinions, I think the one that is the controlling opinion is the worst from a legal perspective. It elevates form over substance, because a subjective prefences can be far more discriminatory than an objective one.
Very, very true. And, as others, have already stated on this thread, subjective decision making leaves far less in the way of tracks. Unfortunately, this could be an "out of the frying pan, into the fire" SC decision. I HOPE that university systems respond by being MORE, rather than less, transparent in their decision making similar to the Texas and Florida practices, but they may well not. "Top 10 (or 20) percent" admissions rules almost need to be a matter of state law imposed on the entire state university system to be implemented.
I believe, in my state, that top half graduates of any state HS are guarenteed admission to the state system, but we have no "elite" institutions that are especially hard to get into.