Tuesday, June 24, 2003

YOU'D THINK WE WOULD'VE SETTLED THIS ISSUE YEARS AGO

Finally, the Supreme Court has added a bit more clarity to the "do's and don't's" of racial preference, though I read two or three news accounts that didn't really get the difference between the two Michigan cases. And the articles being written certainly say something about the political leaning of the writers and their editors. It was a day of "Supreme Court Limits Racial Preference in Admissions" and "Supreme Court Affirms Racial Preference In Admissions" and "Affirmative Action Upheld, But Court Sets Limits". It's one of those that's easy to see "half full" or "half empty" or "neither".

If you've got the time, though, read the decisions. You might be surprised to see what's actually said, including the voices of the dissenting justices, whose words are rarely printed in the media. To read the opinion on the Michigan Law School Case go to Grutter v. Bollinger, and for the Michigan undergraduate case go to Gratz v. Bollinger.


0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home