he Supreme Court Justices exhibited supreme patience Monday in hearing nearly four hours of argument in a pair of major cases involving race and college admissions. But the argument was worth the time, because it exposed some unhappy truths about those who believe in the necessity of discriminating by race.
This means revisiting Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which said schools could use race as one factor in admissions in the name of achieving diversity. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor also famously wrote in Grutter that the use of race to achieve diversity probably wouldn’t be needed in 25 years.
That was 19 years ago, and on Monday several Justices pressed the question about when racial preferences would end. Seth Waxman, Harvard’s advocate, admitted that the school is trying hard to get to a race-neutral future but sees no end in sight for preferences.
Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. Solicitor General and an impressive advocate, said explicitly that “I just don’t think it’s tenable to read” Grutter to say the Court had suggested a timetable. She said using race the way the schools do could continue as long as their interest in diversity is “compelling.”
The clear implication is that the schools can discriminate by race for years to come. And anyone who knows anything about the men and women who run today’s universities, and how they believe racism is “systemic” in American life, knows that the schools will never stop using preferences.