When the Supreme Court heard arguments about affirmative action this week, Slates' marches

of stern was surprised.

Not by the cases at hand, he'd been watching and waiting for those to land at the court

for years.

He wasn't surprised by the epically long oral arguments either, or by the many, many

lawyers who threw themselves at the mercy of the justices, one by one.

The surprise mark was the nature of the arguments the justice is unspooled.

What was so remarkable is that the actual constitution, like the 14th Amendment's equal protection

clause, which is ostensibly at the heart of these cases, it did not really come up until

halfway through arguments.

What Mark is talking about here is something I noticed right away when I listened in.

Debating affirmative action seemed very personal to this court.

The justices are known for couching their opinions in the rigid framing of the legal system.

But as they debated the value of diversity, they sounded more like frustrated relatives

at Thanksgiving.

I welcome the court's questions.

Mr. Park, I've heard the word diversity quite a few times and I don't have a clue what

it means.

It seems to mean everything for everyone.

For instance, here is Justice Clarence Thomas.

Building a lawyer arguing in favor of affirmative action.

Thomas asks, how does diversity actually help students learn?

...