Both suffer from the same problem of being amorphous. "Diversity" is definitely in the eye of the beholder and can be interpreted in just about any way the colleges need to in order to advance their agenda.
I am so glad that Steyn decided to focus on the "diversity" ruling (let's stop saying this is an "affirmative action" ruling -- the rules of the game have changed and it is now "diversity") vs. a column on the sodomy ruling. Both are outrages, really; but, with the "diversity" ruling, my "equal protection under the law" constitutional right has been taken away from me for the purposes of college admission (and employment I imagine). The same with my children, and (because Sandra decided to arbitrarilly pull a number 25 out of the air) perhaps my grandchildren.
Okay, so I don't have a college education, so perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but isn't that the practical effect of this ruling --- to remove the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution from certain ethnic groups?
Yes, Liz. Even some of us with college educations are still able to read that.