The New York Times “Week in Review” published some quotes from a few of the briefs filed in the Michigan cases. Among the more interesting were the quotes from the brief filed by the American Jewish Committee, which supported Alan Bakke in his suit against the University of California but opposes the plaintiffs in the Michigan cases. I was particularly struck by the following comment from the AJC brief:
It would indeed be ironic if, with all the factors that universities take into account to assure diversity or otherwise serve the university’s pedagogical and institutional interests — including geography, sports capability, socioeconomic or legacy status — that the only factors that may not be taken into account are those associated with populations that have been historically underrepresented on our campuses.
It would be more than ironic if that were the case, but, as the AJC well knows (if it doesn’t, everyone there is being paid too much), that isn’t the case. Religion also “may not be taken into account.”
Does the AJC want to change that? If not, why does it believe religion should be a “suspect category” but not race? Does it believe “geography, sports capability, socioeconomic status or legacy status” should be “suspect categories,” or that race and religion should not be? That is, should it be as easy to justify discriminating on the basis of race and religion as on sports capability? If so, why is the American Jewish Committee needed? What rights does it see itself protecting?
Anyone wanting to read the whole nine yards can find the AJC brief here.
