They didn't have the same policy; the undergraduate program was the program that had the 20 points for being black.
Race can BE a factor but not THE factor.
Good, this sounds like a victory..
The undergrad program was so blatant it was going tobe tossed. That was a given. I think the law school program was a longer shot, but we got one of `em, and so things have moved a bit to the right on this.
Not perfect, but it could have been a lot worse.
I read about half of the O'Connor decision and it is a mess. Diversity is grand, but the race element must be temporary, and used only if needed to achieve diversity, and other forms of diversity must also be sought, and the key is to take an individualized approach, and not use strict automatic formulas. What this decision means is a full employment act for admissions officers. They will need to bulk up to go through with papering the record to satisfy Sandra. On balance, this is a defeat, and a big one, for those who are against disguised quotas.
I support the law school approach at Michigan myself, but I would limit it to law schools. Sandra's approach can be applied anywhere.
Having said all that, take the case of California. If admissions were strictly on the basis of academic competence, the classes would be about 50% Asian, 45% Anglo, and 5% other, maybe. In a state where about half the residents are Hispanic or Black, the net result is that public support for elite public higher education would arguably be eviscerated over time, and these institutions really are a generator of economic growth. That might be a subtext to all of this.
I wish I had a good answer to it all, but I don't.