SK> GP>     The U.S. Supreme Court last week refused to hear the U of
SK> GP>Texas affirmative action case, a decision that left intact the
SK> GP>5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that does not allow race
SK> GP>to be a factor in admission decisions (Jackson, THE DALLAS
SK> GP>MORNING NEWS, 7/2).  Interpretation of the high court's move not
SK> GP>to hear the case, Hopwood vs. Texas, varied among advocates and
SK> GP>opponents of affirmative action.
SK> GP>     Ginsburg and Souter wrote that the question of whether a
SK> GP>college can "use race or national origin as a factor in its
SK> GP>admissions process is an issue of great national importance."
SK> GP>They also noted that the U of Texas is no longer using its
SK> GP>controversial admissions process that used separate panels for
SK> GP>judging white and blacks. 
    Multitrack admissions systems are hardly limited to the U. of Texas law 
school.  Berkeley's law school also used a system in which all applicants 
were considered for some slots, but some slots were competed for only by 
minorities.
    BTW, there is ample evidence that quotas hurt their "beneficiaries".  
UNC-Chapel Hill had two quotas for undergraduate admission: one for new 
freshmen, one for sophomores.  UNC-CH met the first relatively easily by 
being open-admission for blacks (though very stiff admissions for whites), 
but the price of admitting freshmen who wouldn't have ever been considered if 
white was that few ever became sophomores!  UNC-CH, therefore, never was able 
to meet the sophomore quota, and a high share of the "beneficiaries" of the 
freshmen quota never got the degree or anything but student-aid debt.
--- Simplex BBS (v1.07.00Beta [DOS])
---------------