Josh Lerner in the University of Chicago’s Counterpoint quarerly takes a look at the status of affirmative action in higher education in light of the upcoming Supreme Court hearing of Fisher v. Univ. Texas, and wonders how long a focus on diversity as a result can survive:

Affirmative action is at the forefront of political controversy again, this time because of the upcoming Supreme Court case Fisher vs. The University of Texas. Just as in the previous affirmative action cases Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, the consequences of the court’s ruling will have significant effects on the way that college admissions decisions are made in the United States.

Advocates for Abigail Fisher, a former applicant to the University of Texas who was denied admission in 2008, argue that she was discriminated against by the University of Texas in violation of her 14th Amendment rights. This case largely rests on the ability of the University of Texas to argue both that the system of racial preferences they have implemented is optimal because it increases student body diversity, and that pursuing diversity is a legitimate goal of a University…..

What do the bulk of these observations have to do with the long-term fate of affirmative action in the United States?

Simply put, the public views racial preferences, which is the regime of affirmative action being defended in the Fisher case, suspiciously, and naturally recoils at the logic of giving anyone implicit advantages simply by virtue of their race.

Secondly, these observations call into question the viability of the “diversity” regime in higher education.

When placed upon the altar of public scrutiny, any system that builds into it a necessary end that entails equality of outcomes regardless of the means necessary to get there is doomed to public rejection.

What does it say that conservatives are the ones arguing for judging people based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin, while liberals on campus take the opposite approach?