Keith Burgess-Jackson invokes baseball analogies to analyze the Michigan cases. He thinks the Anti-Affirmative Actions won the Series 4 games to 2. I’m not sure I agree, but it’s thought-provoking at any rate.

WARNING: Contains dangerously pro-Detroit Tiger sympathies. Do not consume beverages while reading.

(Hat tip: Volokh)

FILED UNDER: Law and the Courts, ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Bryan says:

    I’m sorry, but the tortured baseball analogy is entirely suspect. This was used obviously because it was the *only* way Burgess-Jackson could get the Detroit Tigers into the World Series. In sports, whoever wins the series is the world champion. How many games it took to win only matters to statisticians and TV sports producers. In short, the “best case scenario” is being named national champioins. I can’t imagine being “gnawed at” by losing 2 games.

    Contrast that with the Supreme Court decision. No one can really declare victory, no matter how much they want to pass out the celebratory t-shirts and cigars.

    If anything, it was a 4-to-3 series victory (Yankees over Tigers, highlighting the improbability of AA being fully overturned), with an 11th inning squeeze bunt and a controversial play at home.

    I did chuckle at the obvious hypocrisy of Pat Ireland around this matter.

  2. James Joyner says:

    Well, I guess winning in a blowout is more satisfying than eaking out a victory. To change sports, I found it much more cause for celebration when the Cowboys beat the Bills 52-17 in Super Bowl XXVII than when they needed two interceptions to beat the Steelers 27-17 in Super Bowl XXX. Indeed, that game didn’t even feel like a win at the time–although I’d take it now.

  3. Bryan says:

    I can’t say that I agree as far as satisfaction goes. I was tuning the game out by the third quarter of the Bills game. I detest blowouts. I was infinitely more satisfied with the way the Arizone Diamondbacks squeezed one out against the hated Yankees in the World Series, for instance, or the way the Dallas Stars had to go to triple overtime of game six to defeat the Buffalo Sabres.

    Of course, the Pittsburgh/Dallas game isn’t on the same level as those mentioned above in terms of pure quality of play. Too bad we can’t *not* award a major championship.

  4. John Lemon says:

    I agree with Bryan, with a Joyner caveat. I love when my team wins very close games, especially when they come from behind (or are the underdog). But that is usually in retrospect. During the actual game, I am only happy if my team has a 21 point lead (football), 20 point lead (basketball) or a 6 run lead (baseball). And who gives a shit about soccer?

    As for the winner of the UM AA case, I really can’t buy the argument that the anti-AA (or, as I prefer, the anti-discrimination) crowd won. As I discussed in the Barrel, this decision is ambiguous at best. The way that academia is reading this is that the explicit 20-point ADDITIVE system of UM is out. With the Law School formula passing SC muster, there seems to be innumerable ways to include race into the equation. I could potentially see a ratio formula where someone gets 5 points for being of a certain race, and this is divided by a 5 point scale based on socio-economic status (with 1 being the lowest rung). This creates a situation where race is NOT a primary determinant, but just one of many.

    I would blog further about this, but Blogger is doing maintenance on my blog. Gee thanks. I gotta move!!