Letters.(Letter to the Editor)

--Many things might have made a difference in the outcome of the Center for Individual Rights cases challenging preferences at the University of Michigan, but surely not the fact that CIR didn't attack the claim of the educational benefits of diversity, as John Miller suggests in "'Diversity' D'oh!" (July 28). There was more than ample evidence in the record concerning the university's alleged "evidence," and at no point did we concede on this issue.

Unfortunately, the trial courts, the court of appeals, and the Supreme Court were not the least bit interested in even hearing our evidence, but at every stage took the position that this was a legal question, not a factual one.

Terence J. Pell President, Center for Individual Rights Washington, D.C.

--NR's editorial "A Necessary Amendment" (Aug. 11) is wrong about the reach of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment: It is more radical than the editors imagine, and could even be interpreted to prevent state legislatures from granting same-sex couples a modicum of legal protection, since such laws would have to be "construed" by courts to be enforceable.

The FMA is a far-reaching intrusion on federalism. It is not in the least conservative.

Dale Carpenter Prof., Univ. of Minn. Law School Minneapolis, Minn.

--Ramesh Ponnuru's "Pick Your Poison" (Aug. 11) reminds me that almost all proposals for health-care reform avoid the most basic premise of insurance: It should protect against catastrophic costs. By addressing single aspects of health care (e.g., drugs), one avoids the common denominator: dollars spent.