Friday, January 17, 2003
Thanks to Howard Bashman, we know that the governments' briefs are available online (pdf format) in the law school and undergrad cases. Having read them only once through and quickly, I think that I am correct in saying that the government dodges the question whether diversity is a compelling state interest, declining to state a position on that, and instead places all its argument on the "narrow tailoring" point. And quota quota quota quota. Based on a quick reading, it appears that the government is indeed vague -- especially as to law school admissions -- about what alternative measures it thinks would have been constitutional. Even in the law school brief, its discussion about alternative measures focuses mostly on what Fla, Tex., and Cal have done as to undergrad admissions, which is a different kettle of fish, and which might or might not work in other states' undergrad institutions depending on the demographics of those states. Quota quota quota quota. That's what the Fourteenth Amendment says, you know, in its Section 6: no state can strive for racial equality in any aspect of life through the use of numerical targets as a cross-check to ensure that the decisionmaking process is not unfairly excluding minorities, because that's a quota and quotas are bad.
Also, please go read Digby's take on the issue.
posted by sam 7:19 AM
email: first name@last name dot net