Right. For now it's an open question. I hope it gets cleared up soon. I think the TJ case is a bit complicated, because: - an action motivated by racial balan

Right. For now it's an open question. I hope it gets cleared up soon. I think the TJ case is a bit complicated, because: - an action motivated by racial balancing may be trying to correct for other issues, and not necessarily by 'racial animus' - a lot of the comments (from board members) suggesting racial animus were a precursor to the original proposed policy AIUI the most recent ruling suggested you couldn't assume the latest policy was informed by such animus just because the first one proposed was. To draw such a conclusion would mean the board could never make a new policy without it being tarnished. Such a messy situation.