Law School Dean Jeffrey Lehman proclaimed that last week's Grutter decision was "A tremendous victory for higher education." The University would like us to interpret the ruling as an unequivocal affirmation of the Law School's policies. Little in the opinion, however, can confirm this conclusion.

In fact the majority opinion tries to sell Bakke v. University of California Board of Regents as the definitive guide without acknowledging that the decision is at best, unclear. As Judge Danny Boggs points out in his dissent, "reasonable minds can and do differ on the holding, if any, to be found in Bakke with respect to the diversity rationale."Boggs dissent discredits the majority position, but also examines the Law School's stated goal to achieve a "critical mass" of under-represented minority applicants. The majority is silent on why diversity is a compelling state interest, merely stating that it is based solely upon Bakke and accepts that a "critical mass" of minority students is not a quota.

The Law School offers that the "diversity" it seeks to achieve through its race-based admission policies is a diversity of "experiences, outlooks and idea." Preference given to an under-represented minority in the application process, according to the Law School, is the same that would be given to an applicant with "an Olympic gold medal, a PhD in physics, the attainment of age 50 in a class otherwise lacking anyone over 30, or the experience of having been a Vietnamese boat person." Judge Boggs rightly points out that equating these extraordinary and rare achievements with mere group status is not only misguided, but also disingenuous. The Law School's stated desire for experiential diversity is really a front for achieving targeted racial enrollment levels.

The extent to which the Law School will go to achieve these targeted racial enrollment levels is staggering, a finding that the majority opinion dismisses. An average white or Asian applicant with an LSAT score of 164-166 and a GPA of 3.25-3.49 had about a 22 percent chance of admission while an under-represented minority applicant with similar credentials was guaranteed acceptance. Also, the Law School stops considering majority applicants below certain LSAT and grade point levels while under-represented applicants enjoy 80 percent admission rates. It appears that two different admission systems exist - one for majority applicants, who are summarily rejected at certain LSAT and GPA levels and another for under-represented minorities who nearly always are automatically admitted. This two-track system seeks to achieve a "critical mass" of under-represented minority students, which the Law School vigorously contends is a broad range even when enrollment data indicates it is nearly always 13.5 percent. "Critical mass" is really a quota in disguise.

Even if one were to accept the "critical mass" on its face, Boggs rightfully questions how a prescribed number of under-represented minorities contribute to academic diversity in the first place. The only evidence offered by the Law School is a study conducted by Psychology Chair Patricia Gurin. The study, prepared only for the trial's purposes, attempts to frame the benefits of a diverse student body in terms, according to Boggs, that simply do not satisfy strict scrutiny. Boggs casts doubt upon the study for its many "empirical and methodological defects," by the woman who no less heads the residence advisor's required diversity indoctrination course, Psychology 405..

Boggs' dissent concludes by stating that the Law School's plan does not seek to achieve diversity as a means for educational ends, rather that it "seeks racial numbers for the sake of the comfort that those numbers may bring." His conclusion is the best appraisal yet of the University's racially-motivated practices. The University continues to fool itself into believing that these concerns can be dismissed and offers as its defense an intensely divided decision that will not stand Supreme Court review.

Kevin McNeil can be reached at kmcneil@umich.edu.