The New York Times today has a front-page story headlined - brace yourself - "In California, Early Push for College Diversity." But wait! The take-away from this story is that the sky did not fall when racial preferences in university admissions were abolished in California. Not only did skin-color diversity "rebound" but - more importantly - the state was forced to make reforms that helped disadvantaged students of ALL racial and ethnic groups. The result is that attention is being paid to REAL diversity in admissions, not the superficial kind. Normally I cringe whenever I imagine a Supreme Court justice reading a Times article (never mind an editorial) on "diversity," since the Grey Lady seems never to have met a racial quota she didn't like. But not today: In fact, I rather hope that Justice Kennedy takes a look at this piece as he works on his opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas.
(And speaking of the Grey Lady, what's happening to her? The Times recently ran a front-page, above-the-fold, lengthy piece on the infamous Pigford litigation -- concluding that the "compensation effort" against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for anti-black bias "became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain $130 million in fees." "The total cost could top $4.4 billion," the article concluded.)
Update (5/9): The Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley, as noted here by John Rosenberg, points out that the California story is even happier than the Times story would indicate: Not only was there the "rebound" effect the Times concedes with regard to ENROLLMENT, but with regard to GRADUATION (the more important number) the number of Latinos and blacks has dramatically increased.