tion. Many felt that this was an excuse not to address this complicated and divisive issue. Regardless, the higher education community was going to have to wait for another opportunity to receive clarification. Not long after, a case coming out of the Third Circuit, while not directly on point, was going to be heard by the Supreme Court: Piscataway v. Taxman.Piscataway v. TaxmanThe facts of the case did not even deal with admissions in colleges. However, there is no question that the case could have provided important insight into the law of the land. A school district in New Jersey had to lay off one teacher as a result of financial problems. In order to promote diversity (this was the only reason), the school district decided to lay off the white teacher instead of the African-American. The facts were undisputed by the parties in that the teachers were equally qualified. The Third Circuit (Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and the Virgin Islands) held that this was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and was selected to be heard by the Justices. In a last second compromise, many civil rights groups helped to pay the plaintiff in order to settle the case so that the Court would not issue an opinion. The reasoning was clear: the facts were not favorable to proponents of affirmative action and the Third Circuit decision was expected to be affirmed. The burden of getting five justices out of the nine would have been on the school district since they were bringing the appeal: a very risky endeavor. A decision on this matter would have made it clear, at least in employment situations, whether diversity could be the deciding factor. The opinion could have been written in a manner that would have been broader in scope than the facts presented and could have been legal precedent for the use of race as a factor in admissions. As a result of the compromise, no further clarificatio...
