Reply #37: However, SCOTUS also spoke more recently in other terms.

[Igel]

For example, "diversity." Increasing diversity was a valid institutional concern, having demographics in an educational institution "look like America" was an okay goal.

I suspect that the answer to the OP is already visible: I've heard advocates for "diversity" say truly inane things, in a school that is 50+% black and 40+% Latino, a principal received support for trying to increase diversity by recruiting more black and Latino kids. I've heard advocates for women's rights say that the reason young women out-graduate men overall, both in school and college, is because of "different interests and abilities"--which is exactly the thoroughly reviled reason that used to be given for why men outperformed women. Having more men graduate college than women was a "good" thing for sexists, but having more women graduate college than men is a "good" thing for those interested in women's rights.

Advocates remain advocates even when their justification wanes, and even when it vanishes. By then things are so communalistic that there is no society, and people seem to like it that way.