Supreme Court Oral Arguments in Major New Affirmative Action Case

Althouse reports on the coverage from SCOTUS blog, "Justice Breyer directly asked whether Grutter — the case approving of a type of affirmative action admissions — should be overruled?"

And then going straight to SCOTUS blog, see the roundup, "Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin." And especially, Lyle Denniston, "Argument recap: Will Grutter be reshaped? (FINAL UPDATE)":

Affirmative action is alive but ailing, the idea of “critical mass” to measure racial diversity is in very critical condition, and a nine-year-old precedent may have to be reshaped in order to survive. Those were the dominant impressions at the close of a one-hour, nineteen-minute argument in the Supreme Court Wednesday. There is almost no doubt that the University of Texas’s affirmative action plan for admitting its freshman classes is in trouble with four Justices, but has at least qualified support from three others. The one most in doubt among the eight taking part: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. He wanted to be convinced that the program does not use race at all costs, and it appeared that he was not.

Continue reading.

Plus, Jess Bravin at the Wall Street Journal, "Justices Clash on Affirmative Action." And from David Savage, at the Los Angeles Times, "Ruling out race in college admissions: How far will high court go?"

And from earlier at the Times, from Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr., "Do race preferences help students?" And a rebuttal from Rachel Godsil, FWIW, "Affirmative action and the unprepared minority myth."

But see Elizabeth Price Foley at Instapundit, "A LIBERAL CRITIQUE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Richard Kahlenberg has an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, evaluating the insanity of today’s affirmative action efforts by universities and colleges..."