Some more information from the Supreme Court's Decision in GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER. Justice SCALIA, has some good stuff in his
Here are some quotes:
"The educational benefit that the University of Michigan seeks to achieve by racial discrimination consists, according to the Court, of "cross-racial understanding and better preparation of students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, all of which is necessary not only for work, but also for good citizenship. This is not, of course, an "Educational benefit" on which students will be graded on their Law School transcript (Works and Plays Well with Others: B+) or tested by the bar examiners (Q: Describe in 500 words or less your cross-racial understanding). "
"Unlike a clear constitutional holding that racial preferences in state educational institutions are impermissible, or even a clear anti-constitutional holding that racial preferences in state educational institutions are OK, todays Grutter-Gratz split double header seems perversely de-signed to prolong the controversy and the litigation. "
"Some future lawsuits will presumably focus on whether the discriminatory scheme in question contains enough evaluation of the applicant as an individual and sufficiently avoids separate admissions tracks to fall under Grutter rather than Gratz. Some will focus on whether a university has gone beyond the bounds of a good faith effort and has so zealously pursued its "critical mass" as to make it an unconstitutional de facto quota system, rather than merely a permissible goal."
It seems I am not alone in my concern with this new concept of a "critical mass" being added to the "narrowly tailored" element of Strict Scrutiny in evaluating racial discrimination.