Replies

You are deliberately mispresenting the admission statistics utilized in Grutter.

It is BEYOND DISPUTE that LSAT, undergradute GPA, and mean LSAT of undergraduate institution (used to norm GPAs of less and more competitive colleges with one another) are collectively the OVERWHELMING factor in all race-neutral admission decisions, and similarly beyond dispute that by those three quantitative measures the black and hispanic admitted pool at Michigan was far below that of the whit/asian admitted pool AND that of the first statistical cohort of rejected white/asian applicants.

The majority in Grutter basically said that as long as the Law School CLAIMED that it was making a holistic decision and pointed to non-racial factors that it considered, that this was acceptable. It is all about the SHOW and not about the SUBSTANCE, because the SUBSTANCE is eminently clear that the black and latino applicant pool was separately considered with regard to the decisive quantitative measures and admitted until a critical mass was obtained, regardless of how many white or asian candidates had to be rejected to accomdate it.

And, of course, the proof is the pudding -- what percentage of the summa cum laude and magna cum laude graduates are black and latino? What percentage in the merit slots on Law Review? (Although reducing merit slots is a key piece of the affirmative action agenda, it hasn't gotten too far yet)

Looking at these stats, what does the lobby demand? MORE seminars and other non-anonuymous subjectively graded classes (when lectures grade anonymously)? MORE affirmative action from law firms hiring associates and judges hiring clerks? Bar association mentorship programs and retention targets so that law firms are penalized for not keeping on black and latino associates? And, finally, agitation with big business and governments to not hire law firms which haven't elected a suitable number of black and latino partners?