SCHOOLS CLAIM: classification is necessary to achieve its compelling interest in maintaining a racially and ethnically diverse faculty COMPELLING:

G: Clover believes that one of the ways to ensure that its students perform at their best and prepare for college is to maintain a racially and ethnically diverse faculty NECESSARY: To that end, Clover believes that race must be one of the factors it considers in the layoff process.

Schools interests Obtain a student body with excellent academic and leadership skills committed to community service provide the best possible education Benefits of diversity?

Facts in Schools Favor No quota (VS Crosen)--

Race only one of several factors school considers in its individualized, holistic review it also looks to seniority, relative classroom effectiveness, and outside the classroom school service (Like Grutter; VS Parents Involved) Stereotype-threat reduction training is another way State attempts to realize its compelling interest (Like Grutter race one of many ways of fostering a diverse student body)

Disfavors Clover Policy benefits individuals Clover does not suggest it was also enacted to benefit societyor even the student bodyas a whole Jenkinsdisparities bw AAs and whites on standardized tests is not by itself, sufficient basis for concluding desegregation had not been achieved

UNCLEAR RESULTS AFTER APPLYING PRECEDENT: Clover = College prep school Benefits recognized in Grutter that flow from diverse student body applicable to high school setting? Not higher education context, recognized in Grutter as significant to the holding unique context (cation setting (occupy a special niche in constitution) Possibility not denied outright by Parents Involved -- doesnt say benefits of diversity would never serve as compelling interest in a high school setting

Clover in the middle of the twomost of its students go on to contribute to university diversity, and concurring and dissenting opinion support notion that state-schools interest in diversity is MORE compelling/ proper at an earlier stage of education than that in Grutter (see Scalias opinion in Grutter) Is Clover entitled to the same deference Court granted to Grutter deference to its educational judgment that its interest. is essential to its educational mission In the absence of a compelling interest in catering to the needs of a diverse student body, necessary

CANT KNOW FROM FACTS: Studies based on standardized tests? Are grades dependent on students performance relative to her peer group? Any other notable differences between classes headed by an instructor of a racial minoritye.g. white kids performance? Insofar as School has a general interest in improving its students performance on testswhether a member of a minority or a majority classschool should be concerned with all potential differences in classes taught by teachers of color Schools claimed compelling interest threatened by the possibility of a decline in its white students corresponding performance measuresindicates that whatever benefits minority students receive are detriments to the majority. School does not, and is likely unable to, provide reason that a policy preference for white students to shoulder that burden disproportionate to others is justified by a compelling interest Possible causal mechanisms aside from stereotype reduction (permissible to engage in this inquiry under strict scrutiny to assure narrow tailoring and necessity)e.g. Teachers testing or instructional style does not reflect the typical white-majority bias o Status quo of tests made by and for white people make white assumptions and reflect white culture. Plausible that minority student would perform better without such a bias in their learning environment Especially in comparison to their white peers who are presumably not as accustomed to accommodating for such bias And especially if white instructor/test is replaced with one which might reflect the students own culture, make its own assumptions; at the least, much less likely to confuse her AMBIGUITY IN BOTH PRECEDENT AND FACTS

Attempt to accommodate compelling interest through race neutral means first? Required? Crosen requires evidence of ineffective past attempts to remedy through race-neutral means, but Grutter could be read as not enforcing the requirement

GrutterCourt assumes inadequacy of any conceivable race-neutral means? Exemption for this special context of university? If required, school permitted to use racial classification because evidenced good faith and exceptional circumstance? o Affirmative, self-directed training for all its teachers in stereotype-threat reduction could be viewed as evidence of good faith a respectful concern for race-sensitive matters, and the improbability that the institutions policy amounts to animus directed at its white teachers However, Crosen and Jenkins might conflictfact that one general group suffered from unjust harm in the past inflicted by another general group, without States specific involvement (e.g. history of societal discrimination or discrimination within an industry vs. passive discrimination in failing to remedy recognized bias or directly oppressive laws) will never justify imposing burdens on a member of the general class past oppressivetoo broad; fails narrow tailoring because necessarily speculative and at least either over or under inclusive