.
A race-conscious admission to increase diversity would fare no better than race-conscious admissions designed to exclude minorities. "Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a state institution that intentionally excludes the members of minority groups presented equally weak evidence that education is improved by racial segregation."" A school having no diversity could provide the same education, as a school that is very well diverse.
Diversity is supposed to have an "educational benefit- and is intended to expand the minds of the students, so that they can further get along in their life. Having peers from various background, does not pose a good enough case that the students will succeed in Law and in life. .
For it is a lesson of life rather than law "essentially the same lesson taught to (or rather learned by, for it cannot be "taught- in the usual sense) people three feet shorter and twenty years younger than full-grown adults at the University of Michigan Law School, in institutions ranging from Boy Scout troops to public-school kindergartens. If properly considered an "educational benefit- at all, it is surely not one that is either uniquely relevant to law school or uniquely "teachable- in a formal educational setting .
Diversity is valuable in society and in education, to learn about a wider range of people with different racial and ethical backgrounds, but it is not a- compelling- interest when it comes to educational institutions. There is a big difference in saying that diversity is valuable and saying that it is a "compelling- interest. In Barbara Grutter, Petitioner v. Lee Bollinger, et al. The policy stresses that "no applicant should be admitted unless we expect that applicant to do well enough to graduate with no serious academic problem."" Grades are not the only factor admissions takes into consideration, when evaluating each applicant. The institution states that they also asses "an applicants likely contributions to the intellectual and social life of the institution.