mr. kahlenberg's point, it is socioeconomic, race, and leadership and a range of other factors. so texas, in many respects, is doing it in a way that is consistent with everything you care. b. our contention is the history of discrimination is such, and the practical experience is such that if you have two things that are important-- socioeconomic diversity and race-- you should not blow up the bridge that has allowed people to get to college in-- to follow one directionand won't getyou all the way there. we can do more and need to do more. >> suarez: is part problem that we're trying to achieve broadly social goals using individuals, so that what might be good for texas or u.t., might be bad for abigail fisher. >> that's right. and you saw the conservatives in the oral argument today really focusing onlet means by which texas was trying to to achieve the divest. texas had a successful plan without using race and hen they threw race into the mix and that's where people have real troubles. by contrast, if you look at the polls, by two to one, sernz support idea of giving a leg up