<p>Ever hear of Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 306 (2003)? </p>
<p>Nah, didn’t think so, that would require a depth of intellectual probing that is beyond the capabilities of most. Its far much easier to just throw up a bit of something that one recalls from school long ago.</p>
<p>The Syllabus of the Supreme Court (you do believe in teh SC don’t you?):</p>
<p>The University of Michigan Law School (Law School), one of the Nation’s top law schools, follows an official admissions policy that seeks to achieve student body diversity through compliance with Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750. Focusing on students’ academic ability coupled with a flexible assessment of their talents, experiences, and potential, the policy requires admissions officials to evaluate each applicant based on all the information available in the file, including a personal statement, letters of recommendation, an essay describing how the applicant will contribute to Law School life and diversity, and the applicant’s undergraduate grade **2328 point average (GPA) and Law School Admission Test (LSAT) score.</p>
<p>Additionally, officials must look beyond grades and scores to so-called “soft variables,” such as recommenders’ enthusiasm, the quality of the undergraduate institution and the applicant’s essay, and the areas and difficulty of undergraduate course selection. The policy does not define diversity solely in terms of racial and ethnic status and does not restrict the types of diversity contributions eligible for “substantial weight,” but it does reaffirm the Law School’s commitment to diversity with special reference to the inclusion of African-American, Hispanic, and Native-American students, who otherwise might not be represented in the student body in meaningful numbers. By enrolling a “critical mass” of underrepresented minority students, the policy seeks to ensure their ability to contribute to the Law School’s character and to the legal profession.</p>
<p>When the Law School denied admission to petitioner Grutter, a white Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, she filed this suit, alleging that respondents had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; that she was rejected because the Law School uses race as a “predominant” factor, giving applicants belonging to certain minority groups a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups; and that respondents had no compelling interest to justify that use of race. </p>
<p>The District Court found the Law School’s use of race as an admissions factor unlawful. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke was binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling state interest, and that the Law School’s use of race was narrowly tailored because race was merely a “potential ‘plus’ factor” and because the Law School’s program was virtually identical to the Harvard admissions program described approvingly by Justice Powell and appended to his Bakke opinion.</p>
<p>Held: The Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI, or § 1981. Pp. 2335-2347.</p>
<p>“Compelling Interest” “Narrowly Tailored” is not prohibited by “Equal Protection Clause.” These are all law of the land concepts that require something more than a basic regurgitation of teh Constitution.</p>
<p>There is no “roadblock” based on the lack of skin color. That is just verbal vomit.
I don’t know enough about this alleged list [and you don’t either] to really say, but it sure seems that all the Navy is trying to do is identify minority officers, the careers of which should be tracked carefully.<br>
Webb [assuming the quote is accurate] described the situation well and sadly at the same time:</p>
<p>Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners</p>
<p>The government [The navy] IS enabling opportunity for ALL. INCLUDING minorities, who don’t have the resources that others might have, by helping them with their careers. </p>
<p>Now the second part “not picking winners.” Well, unfortunately, he is corect about that also. The government does a great job of not picking winners; they don’t convince winners to stay. [See comments above about O-6s just being those who hang around long enough.] So, maybe this is way to convince more winners to stick around.</p>