If everyone agrees that diversity is important, then why does the law interfere to keep the status quo?
diversity is a legitimate goal for a college to have for the way it educates all studentsand
"Given the test score gaps between minority and non-minority applicants, if holistic review was not designed to evaluate each individual’s contributions to UT-Austin’s diversity, including those that stem from race, holistic admissions would approach an all-white enterprise,"Fisher, the student involved in this lawsuit, stated:
"It is a shame that for the last six years, hundreds of UT applicants were denied admission because of UT’s racial and ethnic preferences."I would like to point out that when admissions reviewers do not make a conscious effort to consider (non-white) ethnicity and race, the bias tends towards white males--in other words, hundreds of applicants who are not white males would be denied admission...Again, how easy it is to complain about this issue when you are among the privileged majority.
That challenge (and most of the opinions released Tuesday by various coalitions of justices) focused not on the appropriateness of affirmative action, but on when statewide votes are legitimate tools to set policies that have an impact on minority citizens.