Google+
Close

Phi Beta Cons

The Right take on higher education.

Linda Greenhouse on Fisher Oral Argument



Text  



Linda Greenhouse has a silly take on the oral argument before the Supreme Court last week in Fisher v. University of Texas, here. Here’s the comment I’m posting:

Two things. First, far from “failing to engage with the deep issues” in Fisher, by pointing out the fundamental problems with allowing racial preferences — Who defines racial membership and how? If we define “critical mass” as a number, isn’t it a quota, but if we don’t define it with some precision, then how are courts to monitor schools’ use of it to justify racial discrimination? Etc. — the justices were precisely engaging those issues . . . and suggesting that maybe racial preferences shouldn’t be allowed at all. Second, Ms. Greenhouse and Justice Breyer misquote what Justice O’Connor wrote in Grutter: “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That is NOT a statement that racial preferences cannot be questioned for a quarter century. For more on my take on the oral argument in Fisher, see:  http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/10/thoughts-on-the-oral-argument-in-fisher-v-university-of-texas/



Text  


Subscribe to National Review