<p>Dictum is not law. There are many famous quotes within the concurring or disenting opinions that don’t comport with the law.</p>
<p>The Law School’s [substitute “Navy”] narrowly tailored use of race in admissions [substitute “promotional”] decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational [“societal”] benefits that flow from a diverse student body [“officer body”] is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause,</p>
<p>The LAW is that, after being “strictly scrutinized,” such racial considerations may be consistent with a compelling interest. A list that only seeks to identify promising minority officers would like be found to be a narrowly tailored use of race. [After all, “the list” doesn’t GUARANTEE anything as far as we know; which isn’t squat.]</p>
<p>You are confusing HOW a court examines these questions [“strictly”] with the STANDARD is applies: whether the process is narrowly tailored to further a compelling interest.</p>
<p>Your confusion is expected. That is all. Keep on harumphing and blowing and windbagging all you like.</p>