« Not auspicious | Main | "Critical Mass," or When Orwell Meets Oppenheimer »

Reading Gratz v. Bollinger

Well, like just about every other person with an interest in law, I've been reading Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger today. I've not had time to read the second yet, but my immediate reaction is, 'Wow. This is how to confuse the issue and satisfy nobody.'

As one might guess, I'm of the opinion that racial preferences should be abolished in college admissions. But assuming that there is a compelling interest in promoting 'diversity,' and that this is consistent with the 14th Ammendment, I really can't see how Gratz helps. Try as I might to hold with Rehnquist (and I think the court is right with regards to the issue of standing), I keep wondering if the entire project doesn't boil down to one of mathematics.

Without rehashing the facts of the case, the majority decision seems to think that the +20 point preference given to minorities in the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions system is not strictly-tailored enough, but doesn't answer my immediate next question: what about five points? or ten? At what margin does the policy become constitutionally respectable? [1] Souter makes a very good case here, unfortunately.

On the other hand, the dissenting opinions fare no better with my internal economist. Justice Ginsberg [2] wades in with the idea that if the number of minority applicants to a university are small in comparison to the number of non-minority applicants [3], then the odds of any given non-minority applicant being turned down are not noticably diminished. But this is patently ridiculous, as it assumes that university placements are distributed at random except for according to race. Otherwise, while the overall number of non-minority applicants won't be much different--they can't be, given the supposition that minority applicants are a small proportion--the odds faced by any individual will vary greatly depending on how close they are to the margin. In economic terms, what we're worrying about is marginal price.

Similarly, while I grudgingly have to go along with Souter as far as his maths, he (and to a greater degree Ginsberg) obfuscate the point in their criticism of the Texas high school policy of set-asides:

While there is nothing unconstitutional about such a practice,it nonetheless suffers from a serious disadvantage. It is the disadvantage of deliberate obfuscation. The “percentage plans ”are just as race conscious as the
point scheme (and fairly so),but they get their racially diverse results without saying directly what they are doing or why they are doing it. In contrast,Michigan states its purpose directly and,if this were a doubtful case
for me,I would be tempted to give Michigan an extra point of its own for its frankness. Equal protection cannot become an exercise in which the winners are the ones who hide the ball.

But those who set up the Texas set-asides did so to recognise that all high-schools are not created equal, and that the residents of a given area to a great degree share the same disadvantages, regardless of their race. Indeed, I'd be surprised if this point, when debated within the Texas legislature, wasn't made frequently and at length.

Anyway, this will probably be revised several times over the next few days, as I take a look at the decisions more deeply. For now it's enough to note those points. There weren't a lot of surprises as to each justice's opinion, but the use (and misuse) of statistics was enlightening.

[1] The majority decision seems to state that racial preferences are acceptable so long as they are subject to individual consideration, i.e. a member of a given race may be given a preference because of that, but not automatically. The really tragic thing, however, is exactly how little individual consideration is given to each applicant [i]whatever their race[/i]. A truly good application essay, according to the evidence cited in the decision, may give no more than three points. Given the vast number of applicants to top undergraduate schools and the lack of individual scrutiny that any of them receive, this ruling may functionally eliminate race-based preferences from undergraduate admissions, at least in theory.

[2] If anything worries me about the political bent of my future law school, it's that I really can't find it in me to agree with Justice Ginsberg on most of her opinions.

[3] Actually, she quotes a source siting 'minority' and 'white' applicants, while the majority opinion is careful to limit themselves to 'minority' and 'non-minority' applicants. Ginsberg seems to gloss over the point that, from the point of view of the University of Michigan, Ichiro's a white ball-player. Indeed, if the purpose of minority enrollment was the promotion of 'diversity' in higher education, then a foreign-born student of a 'non-preferred' minority ought to have greater benefit than a 'minority' applicant.


TrackBack URL for this entry:


Your internal economist? Is this like Mini-Duke in Doonesbury? M
Um... if you absolutely insist on ruining your life by becoming a lawyer, here's a small hint: The Chief Justice spells his name "Rehnquist". Back when I was a lobotomized legal droid, the senior partner would have ripped me three new assholes for a spelling mistake of that magnitude. Don't let it happen to you. Best regards, Len "left the legal profession and found true happiness" Cleavelin
Heh. Thanks for the tip. I'll correct it now. Yeah, my spelling's atrocious when I don't proofread things, and I have to admit I don't edit my blogs as thoroughly as I should.

Post a comment

NOTICE TO SPAMMERS, COMMENT ROBOTS, TRACKBACK SPAMMERS AND OTHER NON-HUMAN VISITORS: No comment or trackback left via a robot is ever welcome at Three Years of Hell. Your interference imposes significant costs upon me and my legitimate users. The owner, user or affiliate who advertises using non-human visitors and leaves a comment or trackback on this site therefore agrees to the following: (a) they will pay fifty cents (US$0.50) to Anthony Rickey (hereinafter, the "Host") for every spam trackback or comment processed through any blogs hosted on threeyearsofhell.com, morgrave.com or housevirgo.com, irrespective of whether that comment or trackback is actually posted on the publicly-accessible site, such fees to cover Host's costs of hosting and bandwidth, time in tending to your comment or trackback and costs of enforcement; (b) if such comment or trackback is published on the publicly-accessible site, an additional fee of one dollar (US$1.00) per day per URL included in the comment or trackback for every day the comment or trackback remains publicly available, such fee to represent the value of publicity and search-engine placement advantages.

Giving The Devil His Due

Choose Stylesheet

What I'm Reading

D.C. Noir

My city. But darker.
A Clockwork Orange

About time I read this...


Projects I've Been Involved With

A Round-the-World Travel Blog: Devil May Care (A new round-the-world travel blog, co-written with my wife)
Parents for Inclusive Education (From my Clinic)

Syndicated from other sites

The Columbia Continuum
Other Blogs by CLS students

De Novo
Theory and Practice
Liberal Federalism?
Good News, No Foolin'

Nancy Pelosi covers her head and visits the head of John the Baptist.
Vlogging in from Austin.
Omikase/"American Idol"

Jeremy Blachman's Weblog: 2007
Happy Passover
Looking for Advice re: LA
Google Books

Stay of Execution
What I've Learned From This Blog, or My Yellow Underpants
The End
Mid Thirties

Legal Theory Blog
Program Announcement: Summer Programs on the Constitution at George Washington
Book Announement: Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy by Whittington
Entry Level Hiring Report

The Volokh Conspiracy
Making the Daily Show:
Civil unions pass New Hampshire House:
Profile of Yale Law Dean Harold Koh:

Crescat Sententia
Hillary II
Politics and Principal/Agents

Law Dork
Election Approaches
Following Lewis
New Jersey High Court: 'Same Rights and Benefits'

Surveying the revival
Birds of paradise

Half the Sins of Mankind
Cheney Has Spoken Religious conservatives who may ...
Does Ahmadinejad Know Christianity Better Than MSN...
Borders as Genocide In discussions of climate chan...

For lovers of garden gnomes...and any China-freaks out there
We Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Programming

Does SOX explain the flight from NY?
More Litvak on SOX effect on cross-listed firms
What did the market learn from internal controls reporting?

The Yin Blog
Iowa City = Riyadh
Jeffrey Rosen's "The Supreme Court"
Geek alert -- who would win between Battlestar Galactica and the U.S.S. Enterprise?

Letters of Marque
And there we are

Signing Off

Dark Bilious Vapors
Jim (The Waco Kid): Where you headed, cowboy?
Bart: Nowhere special.
Jim: Nowhere special. I always wanted to go there.
Bart: Come on.
--"Blazing Saddles"

Technical Difficulties... please stand by....
The Onion should have gotten a patent first....

Legal Ethics Forum
Interesting new Expert DQ case
Decency, Due Care, and The Yoo-Delahunty Memorandum
Thinking About the Fired U.S. Attorneys

Ex Post
Student Symposium- Chicago!
More Hmong - Now at Law School
Good Samaritan Laws: Good For America?

Appellate Law & Practice
Those turned over documents
CA1: courts can’t help people acquitted of crimes purge the taint of acquitted conduct
CA1: restrictions on chain liquor stores in Rhode Island are STILL okay

the imbroglio
High schoolers turn in plagiarism screeners for copyright infringement
Paris to offer 20,600 bikes at 1,450 stations to rent by the end of the year

The Republic of T.
The Secret of the Snack Attack
links for 2007-04-04
Where You Link is What You Get

Distractions for stressed law students

The Other Side: Twisted AnimationsSomething Positive, a truly good webcomic

Syndicate This Site



Stop Spam Harvesters, Join Project Honey Pot