Mirengoff (inadvertently, but candidly) notes that due to the choice of activist language the six Supremes settled on last week in the Harvard and UNC cases, the notion of legacy admissions may be in peril.

But of course he puts his pearls of wisdom, such as they are, behind his paywall. That is likely because his reasoning / claim that there is no cause of action cannot withstand independent scrutiny.

Here’s what he wrote, overnight:

…Filed on behalf of three Massachusetts-based black and Latino community organizations, the complaint calls on the feds to investigate Harvard’s legacy and donor-related preferences that, for the time being, favor white applicants.

The complaint is a response to the Supreme Court’s decision that Harvard’s racial preference regime for blacks and Hispanics is unlawful. It mirrors arguments that proponents of such regimes have long made, and that are now lodged with new vigor in light of the Court’s decision. Proponents hope that doing away with legacy and donor-related preferences will open up places for members of minority groups whose levels of enrollment, these proponents fear, are in jeopardy due to the Harvard ruling….

Because the Supremes made the argument that “disparate impact” on at least nominally qualified whyte and Asian-ancestry college applicants was enough to show the programs boosting diversity at Harvard would make out a fourteenth amendment claim (in favor of the whytes), then it follows that the disparate impact “boost” from being a legacy from an almost uniformly whyte family that previously had one or more Harvard graduates, per force, must be enough to invalidate it. Right, Paul? Right!

I am not saying the Supremes are right about this — nor are the Latino law advocates here. We are just saying this is a completely logical outcome, from their stilted reasoning. It will be a century before even 30 per cent of all legacies are non-white.

Of course, the real point here… is that the Supremes’ reasoning is… flawed.

Now you know. And, you’re welcome, Paulie.