就算尊重 但還有這句話

It implied that affirmative action should not be allowed permanent status and that eventually a "colorblind" policy should be implemented. The opinion read, "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time." "The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." 

worst case現在還剩10年而已。

所有跟帖： 

• 那你看看Fisher v. UT。那个判例没有时间限制。 -Porcelana- ♀ (0 bytes) () 10/16/2018 postreply 15:12:32

• 那是因為 -violinpiano- ♂ (322 bytes) () 10/16/2018 postreply 15:21:52

• 25年只是当时法庭的判断，不是判决的一部分，而且只是针对UMich Law情况的判断。 -Porcelana- ♀ (0 bytes) () 10/16/2018 postreply 15:27:00

• 判決的可是當下的情況 又不是說這判決永久都不可變 -violinpiano- ♂ (162 bytes) () 10/16/2018 postreply 15:30:49

• 也就是说将来如果需要不存在了可以revisit这个问题。哈佛现在说的就是需要还在。 -Porcelana- ♀ (0 bytes) () 10/16/2018 postreply 15:33:45

• 所以現在剛好revisit啊 -violinpiano- ♂ (120 bytes) () 10/16/2018 postreply 15:36:32

• 需不需要有一个标准的，就是没有了AA还能不能达到Bollinger和UT所要达到的目标， -Porcelana- ♀ (513 bytes) () 10/16/2018 postreply 16:04:19

• 那就看看這篇 -violinpiano- ♂ (272 bytes) () 10/16/2018 postreply 17:54:57