Debatepedia partners with The People Speak Global Debates and the The National Debate Series: Boston (Nov. 10)
Debate Digest Nov 19th: Medical marijuana. Next Debate Digest article: Trying 9/11 terror suspects in NYC courts

From Debatepedia

Parent debate(s)

• Debate:Affirmative Action in the United States

Extended argument and supporting evidence

• Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Affirmative Action". 10.1.07 - "A university's interest in a diverse student body is legitimated by the First Amendment's implied protection of academic freedom. This constitutional halo makes the interest 'compelling.' However, the Medical School's use of a racial and ethnic classification scheme was not 'precisely tailored' to effect the School's interest in diversity, argued Powell."

'The diversity that furthers a compelling state interest encompasses a far broader array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element. [The Medical School's] special admissions program, focused solely on ethnic diversity, would hinder rather than further attainment of genuine diversity.'"(Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, at 316.)

The diversity which provides an educational atmosphere “conducive to speculation, experiment and creation” includes a nearly endless range of experiences, talents, and attributes that students might bring to campus. In reducing diversity to racial and ethnic quotas, the Medical School wholly misconceived this important educational interest.

In sum, although the last of the Medical School's four reasons encompassed a “compelling governmental interest,” the School's special admissions program was not necessary to effect the interest. The special admissions program was unconstitutional. So concluded Justice Powell.