I found the language used the most interesting part. This article, and the WSJ's [1], both write "did not discriminate against White and Asian-American applicants". Which is later contradicted by "U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs found UNC had narrowly tailored its use of race as a factor" - i.e. they <i>did</i> discriminate, but not "unduly" (as the related case for Harvard puts it [2]).<p>It's telling how much they try to avoid accurately describing it as "discrimination". "It is not bad discrimination" is so much more palatable than "it is good discrimination".<p>[1] <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/university-of-north-carolina-at-chapel-hill-wins-in-admissions-discrimination-suit-11634593135" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/articles/university-of-north-carolina-at...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._President_and_Fellows_of_Harvard_College" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...</a>