Grutter Redo, Part 3

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. “stigma” is in the eyes of the beholder..which makes Judge K’s comments surprisingly unpersuasive. The problem in Seattle began because there was a perceived difference in the quality of schools assigned – the fact that there may not be any perceived racial stigma attached or that it is not an objective mark of an individual’s aptitude is irrelevant to the “disappointed” individual.

    That certain schools carry more prestige than others may be nonsensical when looked at objectively but since it’s real (and all you who eschewed state law schools for the prestige of Harvard and the like know what I mean), how do you concretely make the case that the as-yet unproven value of a specifically defined, skin-deep diversity trumps an individual’s school choice (even though we know how Seattle Public Schools feel about “individualism” – it’s rascist)

    The problem with using different standards of review is who gets to decide the what and when of the different standards. Since I’ve seen or read nothing that convinces me the judicial branch has any more wisdom or relevant experience than the rest of us, I certainly don’t want such a non-diverse group (they’re all lawyers!) like them making the decision as to who can discriminate and who can’t. Either it’s always wrong or we let the local communities decide when it’s appropriate…

    …which means, while I consider Seattle’s approach incredibly poor policy(although I understand they are not using it right now, pending the case completion), I’m inclined to let them resume botching it up so as to act as a case study for the rest of us on the perils of social gerrymandering by The Anointed.