I will hand it to SCOTUS, they are a crafty bunch and can always find a way to dodge uncomfortable questions. Turn it back to lower courts and demand "strict scrutiny". It will be interesting to see how the lower courts apply strict scrutiny and still allow affirmative action.
From Justice Thomas' dissent:
"
"It is for this reason that we must subject all racial classifications to the strictest of scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, all racial classifications are categorically prohibited unless they are 'necessary to further a compelling government interest.'"
Thomas goes on to write that "Unfortunately for the University, the educational benefits flowing from student body diversity– assuming they exist –hardly qualify as a compelling state interest. Indeed, the argument that educational benefits justify racial discrimination was advanced in support of racial segregation in the 1950’s, but emphatically rejected by this Court. And just as the alleged educational benefits of segregation were insufficient to justify racial discrimination then … the alleged educational benefits of diversity cannot justify racial discrimination today.”
Do you get that, dear reader, "educational benefits" was cited as the reason for Jim Crow laws and was rejected by SCOTUS. Tell me how "diversity" enhances education? Tell me what is meant by "diversity"? Is it melanin content? Is it diversity of opinion? Looking at Universities in the US, they are totally devoid of diversity of opinion.
An approach to affirmative action that seems more supportable to me would be based solely on socioeconomics, i.e. let's make sure some percentage of entering college classes are reserved for intellectually qualified poor kids with no consideration of their race. I would support that policy.
