It takes a multi-cultural village: I'm guessing the Court will knock back the Michigan program. Somewhere, way back when, "diversity" became the justification for any type of means. It meant, on one hand, you have the majority - whose members can only go to elite colleges if they have good grades and SAT scores, good activities, and can write a good essay. Then you have the minority - whose accident of birth to a certain race or ethnic background, automatically qualified them to leap over some or all of the aforementioned categories because the diversity their mere presence would bring to campus was, in itself, compelling. So, you have those who claw their way to the top and you have those who were born a certain way. Now, this not to say that universities were taking mental patients who "just happened to be black," but clearly, were they white, they wouldn't have made it. Anyway, if the Court upholds diversity as justification for the acts the schools take, then what act won't diversity justify? And, as you put it, when has it been enough? Moreover, is mere exposure to the harsh realities of urban life the goal, or is to effect change in those areas where from where the minorities hail? I'm sure there are studies, and I'd love to see them, but what IS the effect of diversity? Meaning, does it just make a nice class picture, or does it achieve something. Going full circle, is diversity the means or the end?