Big government liberalism tsks-tsks at any social/cultural/economic problem it sees as curable through government regulation, and, where regulation exists already, more of it, as much as the old wagon will hold.
Big government liberalism, from its Olympian perches in the media and the academy, can't envision a set of perplexities irremediable by law, regulation or court order.
Observe how well it works out.
The U. S. Supreme Court faces sharply competing claims as concerning the manipulation of freshman acceptance policies whose effect is to increase minority enrollment by decreasing white enrollment. Meanwhile, in a complementary case, Boston's nearly 40-year-old policy of busing students here, there and yon in the interest of "racial balance" has many in the community agitating to call the whole thing off.
The common denominator of the two sets of circumstances is, of course, the praiseworthy desire to upgrade educational outcomes for minorities. At the price of unfairness and resentment, without substantive accompanying benefits? The price in question is one that big government liberalism has always been glad enough to pay for the psychic satisfaction that comes with sticking a finger in the eye of Racism (long a target of big government liberalism). The regnant assumption among -- let's just call them BGLs -- has been that if unenlightened whites don't like something, the something they don't like must be pretty fine.
At the University of Texas Austin branch (full disclosure: my alma mater) the rigging of admission policies to trim white enrollment has become a matter of dispute. UT is enormous, but so is the state. Not everyone who wants to get into UT Law School gets in. UT decided it could serve the cause of big government liberalism through use of what the Obama administration, in a supporting brief, calls "holistic analysis of individual applicants" -- an academic variation of the old thumb-on-the-scales routine. The purpose: trimming white enrollment, beefing up minority enrollment.