Law School Admission and Race

I am a little confused about how to judge this situation. I agree with Sandra Day O'Connor decision in the case. I think that protecting diversity in the law school can be achieved in part by the plan that the Michigan law school already has in place. I don't think I would be as supportive if it was not for O'Connor admitting that she hoped this policy would not be needed in the future. I like that Affirmative Action programs are part of process to end discrimination. This also means that I don't disagree with the Solicitor General's brief and maybe a hybrid of both plans could work better. As long as the ultimate goal is still to work to end the need for Affirmative Action I am fine with it in most cases. I can visibly see how both methods are effective and the Armed services briefs seemed to show that the Michigan schools standard was effective. Another factor that made it seem that it is fair is the fact that the law school said that race was only a plus and other factors were considered and an applicants race was used only as plus, not a definitive factor. Grutter only said that the minority students had similar GPA's and LSAT scores and she had not seen activities or other factors that allowed them to be accepted. So I think that this wasn't a case of reverse discrimination it was just acknowledgment of other things minority students could bring to the law school.

I also agree with Powell's original decision and the standards for government use and restrictions on Affirmative Action. It works to level the playing field and allows for diversity to flourish in schools that it otherwise would not. I think that's important because, as Feinberg discussed, it breaks the illusion that minorities do not belong in higher education and provides these schools with students who represent new perspectives and ideas in to the institution. I suppose that's where the color-blind approach the government endorsed falls short for me. I don't think that you can turn a blind eye to race because of the positives consequences that exist from having diversity. It should be celebrated for the benefits it provides. The military brief reinforced this idea in my mind and I agree that there theory can be applied beyond the armed services. I also question the governments brief because wouldn't the extensive efforts to test an individual essentially lead to the same type of diversity that Michigan plan did as the school did use individual merits without ignoring a persons cultural background? In conclusion I have no moral qualms about the Michigan Law School's plan.