Nearly all college presidents are deeply committed to the idea that “social justice” requires admitting many students simply because their ancestry puts them in an “underrepresented” category. Never mind that this means accepting many students who will struggle with the curriculum and probably slide into an easy major, and never mind that this means rejecting many stellar applicants because they don’t add to “diversity.” In the minds of supporters, racial preferences are good and must continue.

The problem for them is that the Supreme Court is soon going to rule on the legality of racial preferences and many think it likely that the Court will hold that the practice must stop. In advance of that possibility, college leaders are letting people know that they mean to resist.

Writing on PowerLine, Steven Hayward looks at the “pregame preparations.”

I particularly like the quotation he includes from the president of Carlton College:

This month, the United States Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on whether colleges and universities can consider an applicant’s race when evaluating their application for admission. . . I write today to assure you that, while we will comply with whatever the Court decides, we stand firm in our commitment to increasing the diversity of our student body in every dimension.

Hmm . . . diversity in every dimension. Does Carlton have a preference for students who like Ayn Rand, who hunt, whose ancestors fled from anti-Jewish regimes, who like classical music, etc.? The truth is that schools are only interested in a very narrow slice of “diversity” and don’t care if in pursuing it, they get less diversity in other dimensions. Racial preferences are a foolish, destructive obsession that causes college leaders to say ridiculous things.