This is important as the Bakke decision was splintered and narrow, as Powell's opinion was one of four but not technically the majority opinion. Strict Scrutiny is now the law of the land for university admissions policies. So it appears that even the most conservative of judges were not willing to go as far as many in this forum would like and outright ban all racial classifications in university admissions.
O'Connor's majority applies the test and says UM's policy survives the test. Scalia and Thomas dissent saying that she misapplied the test and that majority simply takes UM's assurances that this is not quota system, rather than looking at the objective data and look at how the admissions policy is applied. Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist all conclude that UM's prgram does not survive strict scrutiny and that strict scrutiny requires more than taking the university's assurances that this is narrowly tailored program to ensure diversity.
I understand all that.
But I agree with none of it. IMO (which counts for blessed little, as I'm not part of SCOTUS, beyond my own sense of well-being, etc.) any system that is based on race, no matter how tailored, etc., violates equal protection - period. Preference (read "bias" or "discrimination") done with "strict scrutiny" is still discimination - it's just sanctioned discrimination.
Not the first time SCOTUS got it wrong, again IMO, but for now that will be honored as the law of the land - until the next test case and the next roll of the legal dice with, hopefully, a more conservative judicial panel.