Kory, that sounds reminiscent of my optimistic take on the Grutter ruling, which highlighted the ruling’s “touchy-feely miasma” by describing how conservatives could use it to argue (like a liberal) for a greater campus presence for themselves. A couple of selections (the page numbers refer to the text of the Grutter decision):


Suffice it to say that on many campuses conservatives are given only “token” (p. 21) representation in what ought to be a “robust exchange of ideas.” Under Grutter, however, this tokenism is a practice that simply must be stopped by any university that avers “diversity is essential to its educational mission” (p. 16). … What the Court in its wisdom found is that for the educational benefits of an element of diversity to take effect, enough individuals representing that element must be present — not just to communicate the “viewpoint” (p. 20), but also to demonstrate to those with the viewpoint that the campus is perceivably “inclusive” (p. 20). … So there must be a noticeable “critical mass” (p. 5) of conservatives on campus for their element of diversity to be “meaningful” (p. 5) in terms of their educational contribution.

What constitutes that critical mass? Again, the judicial standard is based on feeling: “‘critical mass’ means ‘meaningful numbers’ or ‘meaningful representation’ … a number that encourages [conservatives] to participate in the classroom and not feel isolated … [but] there is no number, percentage or range of percentages that constitute critical mass” (pp. 5-6).