majority thinks there are adequate educational alternatives for the disfavored race, then the fact that the institution in question has discriminated against that race is of no concern. “Context” alone cannot explain why, under the majority’s view, racial discrimination in some communities would be wrong and actionable, but in other communities, it would be acceptable and praiseworthy. I cannot join the majority’s analysis. The majority makes a second important modification and announces that in determining whether an affirmative action plan trammels rights or creates an absolute bar, we do not look at whether an individual has been denied an opportunity, but whether the individual’s racial group “within the community as a whole” has been denied an opportunity. See Maj. Op. at 844-45 (<HOLDING>); id. at 844-45 (holding that because
holding that because nothing in the record suggests that educational opportunities in hawaii are deficient for students like plaintiff who lack any native hawaiian ancestry kamehamehas admissions policy neither unnecessarily trammels the rights of nonnative hawaiians nor absolutely bars their advancement in the relevant community emphasis added holding in the alternative that the acf was unenforceable because it was neither attached to nor endorsed on the policy holding that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under  1983 holding neither a lack of prejudice to the defendant nor the running of the statute of limitations constitutes good cause holding that neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history suggests that appointment is permissible only in some limited set of circumstances