The response to this suit is typical: these overly liberal people who have never had to live in or deal with the real world continue in their efforts to engage in distorted social agendas. These same people also try to push their diversity programs, but this doesn't work either.
As such, there is no diversity "program" at Iowa, or any other law school for that matter. The endeavor is really one that flows more organically from the mindset of those in charge, namely the administration and faculty. These efforts are much more subtle than any "program." In light of Grutter, they have to be.
No, the diversity effort is a complex mix of pronouncements from higher up the university food chain and the social/political agendas of the law school faculty and administration. Most of the people pushing these efforts are those who couldn't deal with the reality of the legal profession. They finished at the top of their law school classes, but when confronted with the "reality" of law practice, couldn't deal. In essence, law practice is nothing more than a slightly elevated white collar job that demands somewhat more complex skills and the ability to think in an organized manner, while also being able to deal with a high level of abstraction and critical thinking. Most non-white males seem to find this work repulsive; they think that they're above having to "work for a living" and run and hide in academia. This is clearly in force at Iowa. The people in the top administrative jobs did well in law school but then couldn't cut it in the real world. Also, they found that the real world wasn't receptive to their skewed view of the world. They didn't realize that law practice is a business; it's not about saving the world, it's about getting, retaining and servicing clients - not increasing the ranks of the profession with unprepared minorities.
So...these people drift into law schools and then begin their attack on the "profession." A profession they see as dominated by the white males that they view as having closed the doors on their views of what they wanted from a legal career. So they undertake this effort to increase the ranks of law schools with people who are either ill prepared or unprepared or ill suited for a legal career, give them money support and encouragement, and never tell them about what awaits them in the reality of law practice.
In essence, this attempt by administrators could be viewed as the law school analogue to the "Broadway" mother syndrome: a person who wants their child to be the star that they couldn't be. It's also, in some twisted way, their effort to get back at the profession they feel has rejected them and what they wanted to do with their legal education. So they fill the ranks of law schools with people who don't necessarily want to be lawyers, but feel that they should be given an equal opportunity to have the "keys to the kingdom." What you end up with is a very distorted attempt to shoe-horn the social agendas of the administrators into the program of preparing people for the legal profession. Ultimately, this effort fails but these administrators don't want to deal with this reality. No, they continue to "use" the diversity rap to exorcise their need to influence and change the profession. When you think about it, it's very cynical and selfish. They are really using these people as a tool to carry out their distorted social agenda. Notice how these same administrators are nowhere to be found when these students come out of law school and run into the brick wall of reality.