Please go to the following link, an Amicus Curiae Brief filed by HYS students in Grutter v. Bollinger. Let's talk about it. What aspects of the brief do you agree/disagree with? Why? http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/News_&_Events/BLSA_Amicus_Brief.pdf
An Excerpt (Note: I have posted this response to another thread):
Racial diversity in a student body improves the
quality of legal education. Such diversity is especially
critical for “elite” law schools, such as Harvard, Michigan,
Stanford and Yale.3 These law schools share a broadly defined public mission to train graduates for
leadership and service, and to instill within them zeal to
confront enduring dilemmas in American law and society.
Recent social science studies have documented in detail
how diversity broadens the scope of campus discourse and
teaches lessons in tolerance and cooperation. 3 For the purposes of this brief, the term “elite law school” refers
generally to the nation’s most selective public and private law schools.
These institutions typically admit less than 20 percent of all applicants,
and are often listed as approximately the top 20 schools in various law
school rankings. See, e.g., Best Graduate Schools, U.S. News & World
Report, Apr. 15, 2002, at 64; Brian Leiter, The Top 40 Law Schools
Diversity also helps shatter lingering stereotypes regarding supposed
ideological uniformity within racial groups. As
current students at elite law schools, the BLSAs’ members
are uniquely positioned to explain some of the significant
educational advantages attributable to the racially inclusive
environments found at their institutions. These
students have participated in and learned from campus
discourse and debates that are not likely to occur in
racially homogenous academic settings.
Racial diversity is similarly vital to the credibility and
legitimacy of the legal profession. Although full integration
of the profession remains a distant goal, elite law schools
have been uniquely instrumental in preparing minority4
students – and especially black students – for leadership
positions in the bar and on the bench.
Without the ability to consider race in admissions decisions, these schools will
fall short of fulfilling their unique public missions.
Race-neutral alternatives are not effective substitutes
for race-conscious admissions policies. New Educational Quality Rankings of U.S. Law Schools (2002), at
4 The term “minority,” as used in this brief, refers primarily to
blacks, Latinos and Native Americans, the historically disadvantaged
groups who are the principal beneficiaries of admissions policies that
take race into account.
If elite law schools are not allowed to consider race as one factor in admissions,
the representation of black students at elite law
schools will drastically diminish. Moreover, as demonstrated
in California and Texas, and as shown in empirical
studies, the alternative programs that have been touted as
promising replacements for race-conscious admissions
policies do not produce the racial diversity that is necessary
for elite law schools to train future American leaders.
Please go to the above links, read on, and enjoy...