I have argued here too many times to count (but here’s a start: here, here, here, here, and here) that even the rhetoric of the defenders of “diversity” reveals that its primary intended beneficiaries are whites, not minorities.
A substantial number of white and Asian students (a number equal to the number of minorities whose admission depended upon the racial preference they received) are denied admission to selective universities so that the whites and Asians who are admitted may have the benefit of being exposed to the “difference” exuded by the preferentially admitted minorities.
Once again, in short, blacks are being used for the benefit of whites. If this seems harsh, keep in mind that, in the absence of racial preferences, the minority applicants who no longer would be accepted at the most selective institutions would still be able to attend less selective majority-white institutions, and thus they would still be able to receive all the benefits “diversity” has to offer, whatever they are. (Or, as Justice Thomas implied in one of his exchanges with John Payton, who was defending Michigan’s undergraduate preferences, they could decide that diversity isn’t so important after all and choose to attend a historically black college.)
As indicated above, I’ve been arguing this for quite a while. I would have added “to no apparent effect,” but now the eagle eye of Erin O’Connor turned up a gem she sent me confirming that Lee Bollinger, Michigan’s former president and named defendant in both cases just argued in the Supreme Court, agrees with the analysis presented here! As quoted in the Michigan Daily article sent by Erin, Bollinger is now (unwittingly) on record agreeing with DISCRIMINATIONS:
“White students interacting with African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans sometimes come with stereotypes about these minorities,” he said. “That kind of breaking down of expectations is the essence of what a liberal education is all about.”