"When the court considers the Harvard and UNC cases, it would do well to reject the 'diversity' rationale entirely, or at least subject it to much tougher standards of review...."

"As one expert in an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs pointed out, the 'Hispanic' or 'Latino' category lumps together such varied groups as Argentinians, Cubans, Mexicans and immigrants from Spain. 'Asian Americans'' include racial and ethnic groups that cover more than half the world’s population, such as Chinese people, Indians and Filipinos, among others. Such distinct groups as Arab Americans, native-born white Protestants and recent immigrants from Bulgaria are all classified as 'white.' 'African American' combines native-born Black Americans with immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean. Needless to say, these groups have vastly different histories. Lumping them into a few crudely defined categories makes a mockery of the idea that universities are genuinely pursuing diversity as opposed to engaging in gross stereotyping. Perhaps even worse, the diversity rationale could be used to justify all kinds of racial and ethnic preferences.... For many schools, however, the diversity rationale for racial preferences is likely a smokescreen for the real purpose: compensating minority groups that are victims of long-standing discrimination, particularly African Americans. This justification, which has largely been rejected by the Supreme Court, is much more logically compelling than the diversity theory."

Writes Ilya Somin at "Supreme Court affirmative action cases challenging Harvard, UNC policies are overdue/The Harvard suit features extensive evidence that the school’s admissions system discriminates against Asian American applicants" (NBC News). 

Somin says he has has "considerable sympathy" for the alternative rationale, but it's hard to imagine the Supreme Court switching from diversity to compensation for past discrimination, which it rejected as a basis for affirmative action long ago (in the 1970s). 

[T]o my knowledge I was the only Russian Jewish immigrant in my class at Yale Law School. Would 'diversity' justify Yale using ethnic preferences to make sure there was another the following year?

The words "make sure" load that question, but I think — as someone who has served on my law school's admissions committee many times — that it would be perfectly fine to read an applicant's file, find yourself on the line between yes and no, see that this person is a Russian Jewish immigrant, and go with yes. And that yes would be based on what the current doctrine requires — a prediction that this person's contributions will be beneficial to the class as a whole. It would not be based on the idea that Russian Jewish immigrants have been discriminated against in the past. 

How could I possibly assess all the various harms of the past and funnel the urge to compensate into this one applicant? There's no expertise to defer to. With diversity, there is a notion, however hazy, that the school's file-readers have some special intuition about putting together a good student body and making the classroom lively and full of challenging viewpoints. There's a mystique, a magic, a black box that the Court can decide to leave closed. I know many of you are scoffing at that box. But the easiest answer is to leave it closed, not to move to another rationale for affirmative action.

"We want law and order. We have to have a lot of good things, but we have to have law and order. Got to have some strength. You have to have strength."

"You have to do what you have to do. And you look at a Seattle. We just came in. We just see over the screen and we’ve been hearing about it. Bill and I were talking about it. The law and order, look at what happened in Seattle. They took over a city, a city, a big city, Seattle, a chunk of it. A big chunk. Can’t happen. That couldn’t happen here I don’t think in the state of Texas. I don’t think so. I don’t think so."

Shockingly short sentences and sentence fragments began Donald Trump remarks at the Roundtable Meeting on Justice Disparities in America yesterday in Dallas, Texas (full transcript).

A city, a city, a big city, Seattle, a chunk of it. A big chunk. Can’t happen.

I wonder why he's doing that. Perhaps he can't help it, but I think he's choosing it. It's political poetry. It says: LAW AND ORDER. It's the simplest theme for a politician. He's there. On that theme. You know it. It's everything. Got to have law and order. Or you have nothing. Nothing.

The speech becomes somewhat less staccato:

Politicians make false charges and they’re trying to distract from their own failed records. They have some very bad records and these are usually the ones that cause the problems or can’t solve the problems. These are the same politicians who shipped our jobs away and took tremendous advantage of all Americans, but African American middle class. So much of that wealth and that money and those jobs went to China and other countries and they get trapped. They get trapped. They get trapped in a government morass. They get trapped in bad government schools. So I’m going to be announcing four steps to build safety and opportunity and dignity.

There had better be 4 steps. The steps involve law and order ("safety"), economics ("opportunity"), and something more psychological ("dignity"):

First, we’re aggressively pursuing economic development in minority communities. We’re doing it very powerfully. We’ve done it with opportunity zones, but we’re going to go above that. At the heart of this effort is increasing access to capital for small businesses and that’s with minority owners in black communities and we’re going to get it done and it should have been done a long time ago. It’s been very difficult, very, very difficult for some people, been unfairly difficult.

Second we’re confronting the healthcare disparities, including addressing chronic conditions and investing substantial sums in minority serving medical institutions. We have medical institutions in some areas of our country that are a disgrace. I was going to say not up to standard. They’re much worse than not up to standard. They’re a disgrace. Take care of it.

Third, we’re working to finalize an executive order that will encourage police departments nationwide to meet the most current professional standards for the use of force, including tactics for deescalation. Also we’ll encourage pilot programs that allow social workers to join certain law enforcement officers so that they work together. We’ll take care of our police. We’re not defunding police. If anything, we’re going the other route. We’re going to make sure that our police are well-trained, perfectly trained, they have the best equipment.

The solution for the police is to "make sure" they're "perfectly trained." He's picked up the Democratic candidate tic — "make sure." They purported way to do something it to state the desired goal and then insert the phrase "make sure" in front of it. But these are 3 good, moderate ideas about "justice disparities."

He never says "fourth" or "four," but maybe the fourth step was in this somewhere. What I see in the transcript is a switch to talking about the violence...

There are violent people around, Pastor. Even, you will admit that, right? We want to think the best, but you have some very violent people. And when they’re breaking into your house at 12:00 in the evening and you’re sitting there and you don’t have a police force, they’re actually talking about not having a police force. Well, that’s not happening with us. We’re going to have stronger police forces because that’s what you need. In Minneapolis, they went through three nights of hell.

And the answer to the violence is LAW AND ORDER — provided by Trump:

And then I was insistent on having the National Guard go in and do their work. It was like a miracle. It’s just everything stopped. And I’ll never forget the scene. It’s not supposed to be a beautiful scene. But to me, it was after you watched policemen running out of a police precinct. And it wasn’t their fault. They wanted to do what they had to do, but they weren’t allowed to do anything. It wasn’t really their fault, but they were running down the street. They weren’t allowed to do what they’re trained to do. And they took over the precinct. They burned it, essentially burned it down.

And the answer to the destruction is CONSTRUCTION — and Trump is the expert....

I’m pretty good at construction. I want to tell you that was almost what we call a complete renovation, if you’re lucky.

Hmm. Is that some kind of construction industry joke? Demolition = renovation?

I'll stop here. It's a long transcript. Read it yourself. Or did you actually watch the event? I tried for a couple minutes.