« Reading Gratz v. Bollinger | Main | My proofing skills are dire »

"Critical Mass," or When Orwell Meets Oppenheimer

Well, I finished Grutter v. Bollinger, and it's hard to stay polite after going through it. After reading both decisions, I can't help but be disappointed at what are transparently two dressed-up compromises without the decency to admit they're masquerading as principles.

Justice O'Connor has played Napoleon. Not the French emperor, but the pig in Orwell's Animal Farm, whose most famous dictum is that "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." The 'strict scrutiny' that the decision claims to require justifies every criticism that the dissenters in Gratz (for the most part the majority in Grutter) make regarding the punishment of 'openness.' Rather than simply decide that the 14th Ammendment permits some forms of discrimination (inviting the Congress to decide that it doesn't), or rule that such discrimination cannot be justified except in the most dire of circumstances, the majority embarks upon a 'third way' that would make Tony Blair green with envy. It does this by linguistically torturing words to the point to which they can no longer bear meaning. The majority opinion reserves its most lurid of definitional thumbscrews for two terms in particular: 'critical mass,' and 'compelling state interest.'

I have to admit that 'critical mass' was the term that made me the most upset. Admittedly the term is commonly used to describe a minimum amount necessary for something to occur, but in its technical usage in physics, critical mass is achieved at a definite, measurable point. Items having critical mass in other areas also have such a definite, measurable point. But the majority opinion in Grutter extols the virtue of such critical mass thinking precisely because the university has claimed that it is vague with regards to number.

Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent contains charts which tend to dispute that such fuzziness ever existed, and he has the advantage of being forthright about what can be statistically deduced: comparisons of the number applying and the number enrolled do not show how the system is designed to work, but only how it functions after an unpredictable external factor (which applicants decide to accept admission). Indeed, the similarity between the percentage of a given minority applying to the University of Michigan Law School and the percentage admitted suggests that the University believes that the 'critical mass' necessary for a given minority is roughly equivalent to its percentage of the applicant pool, though admittedly the justification for that would be mystifying.

Nonetheless, the concept of a 'critical mass' implies some point beneath which a given happening (analogous to a 'chain reaction' in physics) would fail to occur. Critical masses are by definition subject to empirical testing, because any point below critical mass would fail to achieve the 'benefits of diversity.' Defining that point (and it has to be subject to definition) would certainly constitute a quota, but in order to make the poilcy constitutional, the admissions officers have to stay in a state of willful ignorance (innocence?) with regards to exactly where that point lies. At least the officers in Gratz were honestly attempting to make a rational assessment; there is nothing 'critical' about the mass involved in Grutter. [1]

Which brings me to 'compelling state interest.' I've never been a big fan of Justice Thomas, but in this case he's got one heck of a point: how compelling can the interest of a state be in having a law school at all if five states manage to get by quite well without them? And how critical can it be to Michigan to have an elite law school most of whose practitioners then leave the state? [2] If the concern for the welfare of a child (quite reasonably rejected as a grounds for racial discrimination in Palmore v. Sidoti, as cited by Justice Thomas) is not a compelling state interest, what hubris on the part of the legal profession would make us think we were so special? Furthermore, Thomas points to the inconsistency between the Court's decision in United States v. Virginia (where VMI was not given anywhere near the deference to its opinions on women under intermediate scrutiny that U of M has been given under 'strict' scrutiny), a difference on which the majority remains silent. [3]

Ginsburg and Breyer at least seem consistent: roughly, they see a difference between positive and negative discrimination and are willing to try to define that into the Constitution. I'd disagree, but it's a position that can be held without the need to perform linguistic contortions. But the lesson to be learned from Grutter and Gratz has to be that admission to university can be race-conscious, just so long as you close your eyes and don't ever figure out just how 'critical' your critical mass is. Woe betide you if it's worth 20 points.

[1] Indeed, justification by critical mass of minorities brings its own statistical bugbears. Only a few minorities are so favoured, but there's no rationale for why, for instance, one shouldn't discriminate in favour of a Native American over an African-American. But wouldn't to do this invite some form of 'racial balancing?' On the other hand, a 100% Hispanic minority admission would otherwise seem to qualify under a 'critical mass' for underrepresented minorities--which makes no sense either. Indeed, the mass here is only understandable if it is not, in fact, critical.

[2] A comedian rather than a Supreme Court Justice might feel inclined to point out what it says about lawyers if there is a compelling state interest to produce them and then export them elsewhere.

[3] I really wonder if as a result of this, VMI or other single-sex institutions don't renew their cases.


TrackBack URL for this entry:


As a heads up, the entire enterprise of law school is to mangle normal english vocabulary into twisted malformations that carry completely different levels of semantic content. The word lawyer itself could probably be redefined as "skilled linguistic contortionist." :)
I know, but you can believe that this is a good thing to a greater or lesser degree. :) I'm not too worried about not being able to do it. It's just not a skill I respect very much.
The "linguistic contortionist" did not make his debut in the 21st century, he has been around for some time. The loathsome conditions that characterized minority schools for the 80 + plus years between Plessy and Brown are, in fact, the result of his deforming the meaning of "equal". For me, it not a question of whether affimative action is legal, but what it is likely to accomplish, for the attitudes and practices causing the idea to be even conceptualized have always been, if not illegal unjust. Its only certain promise is to perpetuate the minority student's substandard academic performance.

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