In any other context — say, that of a left-leaning plaintiff in an important U.S. Supreme Court case — this would be unacceptable. But Slate magazine’s take on the Court’s agreement to take up affirmative action again is all about demonizing the woman at the center of the case.

“The Supreme Court might destroy affirmative action because this white woman’s grades weren’t good enough,” Slate claims.

Here’s what’s wrong with that. First, a Supreme Court case isn’t about individuals. By the time a case has reached that level, it has become about policy, not particular persons. That’s true in this case; the plaintiff in the affirmative action case is important, but she’s only representative.

And second, this looks an awful lot like blaming the female victim. And aren’t we supposed to be careful not to do that?

“In 2008, Abigail Fisher, who is white, sued the University of Texas-Austin for race discrimination,” Slate explains. “The school rejected her, and she blamed its affirmative action program, which considers race and ethnicity in a “holistic review” of certain candidates. ‘There were people in my class with lower grades who weren’t in all the activities I was in, who were being accepted into UT, and the only other difference between us was the color of our skin,’ she explained.”

The bigger policy issue here is affirmative action. How should state universities approach admissions? Is diversity a good thing? Should it be an overriding goal? Does affirmative action itself count as — or result in — discrimination?

These are valid questions the Supremes will be considering when they take up the case again (they heard it but remanded it back to the Fifth Circuit in 2013).

In recent months, Asian students have begun suing top universities, claiming discrimination — they claim they have to score well above students of other races, in order to gain admission.

“An Asian-American student has to score 140 points higher than a white student, 270 points higher than a Hispanic student and 450 points higher than a black student on the SAT to be on equal footing,” one such lawsuit says.

Is that discrimination? If it is — is that OK?

Slate doesn’t answer or even address these questions. It mostly just goes after the woman who brought the lawsuit.

Slate points out she wasn’t in the Top 10 percent of her class, which would have guaranteed her admission to any state school.

“With a 3.59 grade-point average and a modest SAT score of 1180 out of 1600, she was a solid student, but not a great one, not for a school with an overall acceptance rate of 40 percent and an extremely low acceptance rate (comparable to Harvard’s) for in-state students admitted outside of Top 10,” Slate claims.

Again, in any other context, this would be unacceptable. It’s awfully close to victim-blaming, which is particularly egregious when the victim is a woman.

So let’s stick to policy. Slate does describe Texas’ Top 10 rule, which helps students who work hard, regardless of race.

That’s real affirmative action.