@箐箐 wrote "racial discrimination 是 strict scrutiny, 最严重的一种”。You have mixed up different concepts. The legal status quo is that "racial quota" is illegal. "Race as one of the factors" is not illegal per se, but needs to justified, and the legal standard is "strict scrutiny". The circuit court has ruled in the Fisher case that U Texas policy met this standard. Fisher side appealed to the Supreme Court, so it's the supreme's turn to weight in.
Okay, let me make it simple for you. Racial discrimination is illegal. The question is whether using "race as one of the factors" can serve compelling government interests. In other words, the Supreme Court doesn't think "race as one of the factors" is "racial discrimination", so it could be justified, but the standard has to be high.
Supreme Court doesn't make law, they only interpret it. There is clear law to outlaw discrimination based on race. If they think "race as one of the factors" is "racial discrimination ", they'd ban it the first round of Fisher.
You may think "race as one of the factor" is "racial discrimination". But the Supreme Court apparently doesn't. If they agree with you, they'd ban it already. They won't allow someone to justify it. Basic logic.
@菁菁 you are partially right: "As applied in Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the race-based exclusion order and internment during World War II of Japanese Americans who had resided on the West Coast of the United States, strict scrutiny was limited to instances of de jure discrimination, where a racial classification is written into the language of a statute." CLEARLY, there is law says Chinese student should be treated differently. The " Discrimination" claimed is de facto, not de jure. Hence, cannot be justified on the ground of compelling government interests.
The new thing coming out Fisher I is that the Supreme Court specified the "race as one of the factors", even though not de jure racial discrimination, it has to meet "strict scrutiny".
