BuryYourDuke wrote:... it's not that my solution is to give up, it's to live to fight another day.
Very well, I can accept your position. Please promise me your “other day” will be when they come after men’s track. I think it is freaking cool we actually can have NCAA Champions sitting in the classrooms at Liberty. The wrestlers won’t be around to help so the tracksters will need someone to stand up. Don’t think the NCAA titles will protect them, UCLA dropped their men’s swim team.
The following is a link to a page discussing the constitutionality of quotas. I spent VERY little time searching and I am sure there are plenty of better resources. But, I think you will find that we might not be that far away from actually challenging this.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... action.htm
Here's a quote from the page:
In 2003, the Court decided two cases challenging affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan--one involving the law school (Grutter v Bollinger) and one involving the undergraduate college (Gratz v Bollinger). The result was a split for Michigan, with the Law School's more individualized consideration of race upheld on a 5 to 4 vote, and the undergraduate school's more blatant heavy weighting of race as a plus factor struck down, 6 to 3. Justice O'Connor's opinion for the Court in Grutter adopted much of Justice Powell's reasoning in Bakke. O'Connor found the Law School's asserted interest in creating a diverse student body to be a compelling justification for its consideration of race, and found the school admission policy appropriately considered race along with many other characteristics or experiences that could contribute to diversity. O'Connor cautioned, however, that affirmative action programs should have some termination point, and she suggested that in another twenty-five years a similarly structured program would be unlikely to stand.