@菁菁 in Fisher II: "If Fisher I permits UT to prevail here, the Court will need to rethink its endorsement of Grutter’s diversity interest given the diminished force of “stare decisis when fundamental points of doctrine are at stake.” Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 792 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)."
您是不是假定所有华人都100%支持您，是您的 followers？ 所以面对批评，您觉得 deep sense of betrayal. 这种假定，离现实相距甚远。没有谁宣誓效忠吧。没有效忠，何来背叛？就算您是为您的批评者的孩子在奔波，也需要孩子家长的consensus 吧。世界就这么黑白分明， 您的举动就是义举，发言就是弘扬正气， 辩解就是正当防卫。批评您就是小人别有用心，断章取义，躲在阴暗处，人身攻击，陷害抹黑造谣。从您的声明里列举的罪名，似乎得不出这些结论呀。您说只有儒学才能救美国（教育），别人不同意（问问您的铁粉，有谁能同意？）提出不同意见。不是十分正常的吗？怎么就是陷害抹黑了呢？ 您支持A党，反对B党，但对A党有保留，对B党有同情。so what? 又不是文革中国，怕被说成国民党。下面这条最奇怪，您把别人批评您"容不得不同意见"叫抹黑。您写这么个声明，难道不是容不得不同意见的self-evidence吗？连这么温和的批评都不能接受，还有什么批评能接受呢？ 看看您的极端观点，把美国大学抨击为办“大杂剧院”，稍有判断力，都知道不是事实。您居然大张旗鼓宣扬。持这样的观点，还指望不受批评？您是公众人物，在美国多年，目前正在选举季节，怎么分不清辩论和攻击的区别？这么说吧，1000给您点赞的人，比不上一个向您说不的人。真正帮您的，是这些批评者。
"Practitioner’s note or concluding unscientific (and unhappy) footnote: The above is the (relatively) happy face on today’s decision, from my point of view. We’re better off than we were a year ago — but not, of course, as well off as we would like to be. We had hoped that the Court would put an end to this nonsense, and it didn’t. We would have liked it better if there had been four other Justices willing to join Justice Thomas’s excellent concurrence.
Could this have been avoided? Well, consider this exchange before the Court at oral argument:
“Counselor, are you asking this Court to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger?”
“Your honor, I am asking this Court to rule in favor of my client, Abigail Fisher. If you overturn Grutter v. Bollinger, you will be ruling in favor of my client, so that is certainly an outcome that I would welcome and be comfortable with. But it is also true that you can rule in favor of my client without overturning Grutter v. Bollinger.” [Blah, blah, blah.]
Alas, the exchange above did not take place at oral argument before the Court. The actual exchange, and the limited discussion of overturning Grutter in Fisher’s briefs – though not by her various amici – made it possible for Justice Kennedy’s opinion, and Justice Scalia’s terse concurrence, to say that the Court wasn’t being asked to overturn Grutter and so it wasn’t. Not wanting to appear too greedy or overreaching, counsel ended up making a dubious concession at oral argument (the latter is usually a bigger danger than the former)."
"Or maybe that’s too harsh. After all, Supreme Court Justices can do pretty much what they would like to do, at least when it comes to writing opinions, and they could have written more expansively than they did. Fisher’s stance on Grutter was, moreover, not unambiguous."
当然, 各种情况都会发生。我认为如果大部分美国名校都想要race based AA 作为last resort to achieve necessary diversity. 那么他们会给大法官们施加压力。不要忘记这些大法官和他们的助手们都是从这些名校出来的。他们可以不听别人的意见。但母校的话是不得不参考的。这就是我最大的理由。
