While I'm sure every "blawg" out there will be posting on this little matter of race and education, I'm mostly posting about it because it gives me an excuse to post the work I did for the Write-on Competition. The casenote all us hapless 1Ls had to write was actually about controlling precedent in one of today's Supreme Court decisions.

Everything I cited, along with a fair bit of other material that I didn't use (including the Seattle case), was given to me early one Monday morning. We were barred from using any other references. I read all the material in one day, then spent two full days writing (then I spent a day-and-a-half editing sample footnotes). Since I was invited to join the Law Review staff, and since I can't submit this casenote for publication, and since it's a little out-of-date now, I've posted it here for reference and so everyone can see how much fun I had.

If you're really feeling masochistic, you can give it a read. Although today's decision adds to the available case law, I would submit that most of the criticisms I level against the Court's decision in Grutter v. Bollinger still stand. The Court is caught up in making hotly contested ad hoc decisions without deciding the matter on underlying legal principles.

Anyhow. It's not really an area of expertise for me, but I did spend three whole days pretending to be an expert on the subject, so there you have it. And you get to see what sort of work product I can churn out in three days d^_^b.