grutter v. bollinger, 2003 WL 21433492

Held: The Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI, or § 1981.

so Justice Powell lives.

but scalia's dissent is hilarious. "[T]he University of Michigan Law School's mystical 'critical mass' justification for its discrimination by race challenges even the most gullible mind." plus, he quips about the dubious "educational benefit" language of the majority, suggesting that no such benefits exist, practically speaking, for the bar has no questions of the sort: "Describe in 500 words or less your cross-racial understanding." ha! Nor are such "educational benefits" apparent on transcripts: "Works and Plays Well with Others: B+". too funny... Since all the "educational benefits" are lessons of life and socialization and good citizenship, and not of law, and hence not uniquely relevant to law school, such discrimination must also be allowed (most appropriately so!) in state and even private employment. After all, this is all done for the purposes of creating better Americans, better lawyers, better civil servants, better people! "The nonminority individuals who are deprived of a legal education, a civil service job, or any job at all by reason of their skin color will surely understand." touche.