lesl at UDEL.EDU
Mon Jun 26 08:50:35 PDT 2000
Why is admission to colleges and universities of MORE equal percentages of the various races in a state plausibly describable as a DISPARATE (read disproportionately ) racial impact?
Mark Tushnet wrote:
> Frank Cross writes: "I can't imagine the constitutional attack on the 10% plan." Here's the structure of the argument. Facially neutral laws, etc., with a disparate racial impact are constitutional (if they are supported by a rational basis), *unless* they are adopted with the purpose of achieving (or "in order to" achieve) the disparate racial impact, in which case they must satisfy strict scrutiny. But that is precisely a description of the post-Hopwood plan: achieving a racially disparate impact (reproducing as best the state can the outcomes under affirmative action) is the point of the plan.
> Mark Tushnet
> Georgetown University Law Center
> 600 New Jersey Ave. NW
> Washington, DC 20001
> 202-662-9497 (fax)
> tushnet at law.georgetown.edu
More information about the Conlawprof