Racial classifications contradicts the 14th andments guarantee of equal treatment. It relied upon sah typical assumptions that race is necessarila proxy for ones viewpoint and its purported limi are empty and selfcontradictory, which is why it also creates many negativeem. Effects. Some applicants are instanof eyes to concear race. Others admitted on merit have their accomplishments diminished by saying celayed a role in their admission. In two decades, this has somehow reduced thro of race on campus. Mr. Strawbridge, the respondents are at if you dont consider race, you wont be able toonder the whole person in the admissions process. How do you respond to that . This court has always said that racial, it is possible that re uld provide context for experience, but just ering race and race alone is not consistent with the constitution. Is also not consistent with other holistic approaches at this court takes. There is great freedom, for example to strike a juro but one thing you cannot
Racial classifications contradicts the 14th amendments guarantee of equal treatment. It relied upon sarah typic assumptions that race is necessarily a proxy r ones viewpoint and its purported limits are emp and selfcontradictory, which is why you and see simply ignores them. It also creates many negative effects. Some applicants are instant of eyes to conceal their ra. Others admitted on merit have their accomplishments diminished by saying race playea le in their admission. In two decades, this has somehow reduced the role of n campus. Mr. Strawbridge, the respondents argue that iyo dont consider race, you wont be able to consider e ole person in the admissions process. How do you respond to that . This court has always said that racial, it is possible that race could ove context for experience, but just considerinra and race alone is not consistent with the constitution. It is ot consistent with other holistic approaches that this court takes. Therisreat freedom, for example to strik
racial classifications contradicts the 14th amendment s guarantee of equal treatment. it relied upon sarah typical sumptions that race is necessarily a proxy for one s viewpoint and its purported limits are empty and self-contradictory, which is why you and see simply ignores them. it also creates many negative effects. some applicants are instant of eyes to conceal their race. others admitted on merit have accomplishments diminished by saying race played a role their admission. inwo decades, this has somehow reduced the role of race on campus. mr. strawbridge, the don t consider race, you won t be able to consider the whol person in the admissions ocs. how do you respond to that? this court has always said at racial, it is possible for experience, but justt considering race a re alone is not consistent with the constitution. it is also notonstent with other holistic approaches that this court takes. there is greedom, for example to strike a juror. but one thg u cannot
racial classifications contradicts the 14th amendment s guarantee ofqual treatment. it relied upon sarah typical assumptions that race is necessarily a proxy for one s viewpoint and its purported limits are empty and self-contradictory, which is why you and see simply ignores them it also creates many negative effect some applicants are instant of eyes to conceal their race. otheitted on merit have their accomplishments diminished by saying race played a role in admission. in two decades, this has someh reduced the role of race on mp. mr. strge, the respondents argue that if you don t consider rac y won t be able to consider the whole peonn the admissions process. how do you r to that? ts court has always said that racial, it is possib that race could provide context for experience, but just considering race and race alone is not consistent with the constitution. it is also not consistent with other holistic approaches that this court takes there is great freedom, for e