No. There is one critical difference between the two cases. For undergraduates, the advantage for certain students was absolute and solely race-based. Every member of the target race got the advantage, without any consideration of whether it was appropriate. However, for law school applicants the advantage was individually considered. For example, a child of Cliff and Clair Huxtable (the Cosby family on TV), would get no advantage that child of a doctor and a lawyer, attending good schools in good neighborhoods, would be expected to perform at the same level as any Caucasian or Asian American student.
There is a critical point in the law school case not mentioned in any of the press reports this writer has seen and heard. In line with prior Court decisions, Justice O'Connor's Opinion states that it should remain in effect only for "twenty-five years." Even by its own terms, this decision is deliberately temporary. That leads to the ultimate conclusion that affirmative action, even in the limited form accepted in one case today, will be abolished as unconstitutional. - 30 - About the Author: John Armor practices civil rights law in the Supreme Court, and is filing his 17th brief there this month.
What the Court effectively did was take the easy way out while attempting to throw conservatives a bone by rejecting the undergraduate case.
This Court has shown itself to be both politically correct and yet morally bankrupt at the same time. It's time for Sandra to go and I say, "Good riddance!"