<p>Chedva, me too. I said that I was posting my last words on the subject, but I’ll try again.</p>
<p>higherlead, you have spent much of this thread giving legal advice while disparaging lawyers. You’re perfectly free to do that, but at least get it right. There is no reported equal protection case of which I, or any of the lawyers in this thread are aware, where a plaintiff who was not a member of a protected or quasi-protected class was able to successfully challenge an admission or employment decision on discrimination grounds. City of Cleburne, the only case you’ve cited, involved the denial of a zoning permit to build a group home for the mentally ■■■■■■■■, and has absolutely nothing to do with how a subjective admissions decision would be considered. Further, as Chedva points out, there is no equal protection case which has ever been successfully litigated without plaintiff’s being able to identify the class he/she belongs to which is being discriminated against. And, no judge I have ever appeared before would permit a litigant to conduct discovery to find out if there was such a class and, if so, whether the plaintiff was in it without a claim being stated. There are rules requiring a litigant to plead based on a good faith belief, reached AFTER REASONABLE INVESTIGATION, that an actionable wrong has been commited, and sanctions which can be imposed for violation of these rules. </p>
<p>The idea that the class in this specific case is “those the admissions department harboured personal biases against” is ludicrous. If you’re suggesting that a plaintiff could successfully file a complaint like that, well, I’ll reiterate the sanctions comment above.</p>
<p>marite also makes a great point–colleges which make specific requirements can be at risk as well. Note that there were two University of Michigan cases–one involving the undergraduate school, and one involving the law school. In the undergrad case, UM spelled out its point system giving specific, quantifiable weight to being a URM, while in the law school case, it subjectively took that factor into account as a possible part of the quilt, but did not quantify the weight of that factor. The undergrad system was struck down, but the law school system was upheld (the law school case is Grutter v. Bollinger, if you’re interested). So much for the idea that the adcom’s decision process must be easily discernable and, to use your term, “transparen[t]”. </p>
<p>I’ve refrained from asking, but I have to now–are you a lawyer? Have you ever litigated a case? What do you do? What is your stake or interest in this? Several in this thread have put ourselves out there, and identified ourselves as litigators, adcoms, etc., so that our opinions can be judged in light of our experience. Time for you to stand up and be counted.</p>