Podcasts about sffa

On this episode of the Rules of the Game podcast, the second installment of our eight-part series focusing on critical issues, we dive into the latest headlines shaping racial justice and immigrant rights. We'll explore how nonprofits can play a pivotal role in advocating for change through legislative, executive, and judicial channels. From raising awareness to securing funding for advocacy efforts, nonprofits across the nation are stepping up in the fight to protect our rights. This episode not only highlights their impactful work but also provides crucial insights into the rules and regulations that govern nonprofit advocacy in the ongoing struggle for racial justice and immigrant rights.   Attorneys for this episode  Monika Graham Brittany Hacker Quyen Tu    Current Events/EOs:     ·      Trump Administration Cuts Funding for Unaccompanied Immigrant Children, essentially terminating the UAC Program   o   UAC Program Responsibilities: §  Ensuring that the interests of the child are considered in decisions related to care and custody §  Ensuring, to the greatest extent practicable, that all unaccompanied alien children in custody have access to legal representation or counsel §  Releasing UAC to qualified sponsors and family members who are determined to be capable of providing for the child's physical and mental well-being o   The Fallout: §  Impacts the work of 100 plus legal service providers §  RAICES 199+ employees laid off §  Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston 101 employee layoffs §  Catholic Charities Tarrant County 169 employee layoffs §  Catholic Charities Houston/Dallas 180 employee layoffs §  Over 26, 000 children left without legal representation §  Immigration court backlog includes about 3.5 million cases ·      Attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion o   Trump's order to investigate around 350 philanthropic organizations holding combined assets of $900B due to their DEI programs. o    Funders' responses: Some have remained steadfast in their commitment, while others have backed down. o   Context to understand the broader tension: ·       A surge in commitment to racial equity following the murder of George Floyd by police in 2020. ·       SCOTUS ruling in June 2023: The Supreme Court deemed race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and UNC unconstitutional in the Students for Fair Admissions case, effectively ending affirmative action in college admissions. ·       In response to SFFA, in August 2023, the American Alliance for Equal Rights sued Fearless Fund, alleging its grant program for Black female entrepreneurs was racially discriminatory. The 11th Circuit Court halted the program during litigation, and Fearless Fund settled in September 2024, ending the program. As a result, grants or contracts restricted to a specific race may now violate federal law. o   Government and private sector DEI offices and programs have shut down. o   Numerous lawsuits are pending, creating additional legal uncertainty. o   Chilling effect already unfolding, with widespread chaos and uncertainty.   ·      Executive Orders (10 in the first 7 days) o   Ended humanitarian parole for immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, forcing those legally allowed into the U.S. to leave. o   Attempt to end birthright citizenship. o    Ramp-up of deportations, expanding the list of individuals prioritized for removal. o   Paused the refugee resettlement program, capping it at the lowest level in 40 years. o   Ongoing challenges: Many policies have been paused or are currently being contested in the courts. o   Impact on individuals: Deportations of student visa holders detained by masked individuals, and the arrest of Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) based on their involvement in Free Palestine movements. o    Deportations to El Salvador without due process for immigrants alleged to be gang members—based solely on tattoos. o   Wrongful deportation: A Maryland man was deported to El Salvador despite a court order prohibiting his deportation. Authorities claim it was an administrative error, with no legitimate reason for his arrest, detention, or removal. Even DOJ lawyers have expressed confusion about why the administration isn't bringing him back, despite being ordered to return him by midnight tonight. o   Shocking incompetence: The lack of diligence and understanding of the human impact of these policies is alarming.         Advocacy ·      Executive Order Advocacy: o   501(c)(3) compliant, safe, nonpartisan, non-lobbying advocacy activity (keeping in mind that other federal, state, and local regulations may apply) o   Track and communicate EOs, assist immigrant communities in understanding their implications, and help prepare through targeted social media campaigns o   Develop a preparedness plan for potential ICE actions at your nonprofit, ensuring the safety and rights of those involved ·      Fund Advocacy: o   General support grants provide funding that is not earmarked for a particular purpose and can be used at the discretion of the recipient organization to advance their mission and cover operating costs.  o   Specific project grants: Private foundations must review the grantee's project budget and may award up to the non-lobbying portion. Funds must be used exclusively for the designated project. o   Note: Public foundations that have made the 501(h) election may follow the same general support and specific project grant rules that apply to private foundations, and these grants should not be considered a lobbying expenditure by the foundation, even if the recipient public charity spends the grant funds on lobbying ·      Public Awareness: o   Amplify the voices of unaccompanied children through powerful storytelling campaigns that humanize their experiences and bring attention to their plight. o   Conduct in-depth research on the impact of funding cuts, highlighting how these reductions are affecting the lives of vulnerable children, and share these findings publicly to increase awareness. o   Actively engage with your community by hosting events, discussions, or social media campaigns that educate the public on current issues surrounding unaccompanied immigrant children and provide actionable ways they can advocate for meaningful change. Lobbying  ·      Tax Code Lobbying 101: Public charities can engage in lobbying! Ensure you track and report all local, state, and federal lobbying activities while staying within legal limits. ·      Host a Lobbying Day: Organize a dedicated event, like AILA's National Day of Action, to mobilize supporters and advocate for critical issues. ·      Engage in Ballot Measure Work: Actively participate in ballot measures to influence public policy decisions at the local or state level. ·      Remember: o   State/local level lobbyist registration and reporting requirements may apply when engaging in legislative and executive branch advocacy. o   Ballot measure advocacy could implicate state/local campaign finance and election laws.        Resources ·      Race and Equity: The Advocacy Playbook for Racial Justice and Immigrant Rights  ·       The Impact of Government Funding Cuts on Unaccompanied Children and the Role of Nonprofits in Fighting Back ·      Public Charities Can Lobby ·      Practical Guidance: What Your Nonprofit Needs to Know About Lobbying in Your State ·      Investing in Change  

Institutions of higher education released demographic data for their first classes admitted after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College held that the Constitution prohibits the use of race as a “bonus” in admissions decisions. The demographic data reflect a variety of admissions policy changes. Four […]

Institutions of higher education released demographic data for their first classes admitted after the Supreme Court's landmark decision Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College held that the Constitution prohibits the use of race as a "bonus" in admissions decisions. The demographic data reflect a variety of admissions policy changes. Four new voices in civil rights law--all recent law school graduates--will summarize trends in post-Fair Admissions admissions policies and data to explain how institutions of higher education responded to the Fair Admissions decision. Featuring: Peter Abernathy, Judicial Law Clerk, 31st Circuit Court of VirginiaSamuel Gellen, Honor Law Graduate Attorney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionLeo O'Malley, Judicial Law Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of TexasAnthony Pericolo, Associate, Desmarais LLP(Moderator) Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity

The “disparate impact” approach to civil rights enforcement makes it presumptively illegal to use selection criteria that result in statistical disparities based on, inter alia, race or ethnicity. It is no defense that the use of a challenged criterion had no discriminatory motive; the only defense is if its use meets some “necessity” standard. The inevitable result is to encourage race-based decision-making when selection criteria are chosen and implemented. Yet using this approach is widespread and found in numerous statutes and regulations. Given the Supreme Court’s decision striking down racial preferences in SFFA v. Harvard, what impact will this have on the disparate-impact approach?Featuring:Mr. Dan Morenoff, Executive Director & Secretary, American Civil Rights ProjectMr. Joshua P. Thompson, Director of Equality and Opportunity Litigation, Pacific Legal FoundationHon. Jenny R. Yang, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of LawModerator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard was the most important decision on affirmative action in generations, banning preferential treatment based on race in higher education admissions. How are colleges and universities complying with SFFA? What else will be necessary in order to ensure compliance? What does the next generation of cases look like? Outside of higher education, what will be the effect of SFFA? Does it apply to employment and contracting? Does it apply to gender as well as race? What does it say about disparate impact?Featuring:Prof. Peter Arcidiacono, William Henry Glasson Professor of Economics, Duke UniversityProf. David Bernstein, University Professor of Law; Executive Director, Liberty & Law Center, George Mason University Prof. Kyle Rozema, Professor of Law, Co-Director of the JD/PhD Program and Academic Placement, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawProf. Sonja Starr, Julius Kreeger Professor of Law & Criminology, University of Chicago Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Lisa Branch, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Last year, the Supreme Court decided the cases of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Student for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (SFFA). The Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision has been interpreted broadly as outlawing race affirmative action in college and university admissions. However, in footnote 4 of the opinion, the Court indicated that its decision “does not address the issue” of race-based admissions programs at the military academies. Shortly after the release of SFFA, Students for Fair Admissions sued both West Point and the Naval Academy to directly challenge their admissions programs. This webinar will provide a litigation update in these cases and explore the ramifications of the exemption to the SFFA holding created by footnote 4 of the opinion.Featuring:John E. McGlothlin, Special Projects Officer, National Guard Bureau, Office of the Inspector General; Adjunct Professor, University of Maryland Global CampusJohn J. Park, Jr., General Counsel, Indigo Energy(Moderator) Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity

DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives have become ubiquitous on campuses and in workplaces across the nation, particularly after the death of George Floyd in late May 2020 and the rapid rise of "anti-racism" initiatives. These efforts, frequently using racially exclusionary or derogatory terminology and eligibility, were considered by some legal experts to be of doubtful legality. But after the Supreme Court's June 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC (SFFA), DEI practices have come under expanded legal challenge. This program will examine the legal viability of race-focused DEI practices in light of SFFA, reviewing practices, challenges, and case developments.Featuring: Giovanni D. Cicione, Chair, Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil RightsNicole Levitt, Staff Attorney, Women Against Abuse Inc. (Moderator) Prof. William A. Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, and Founder of the Equal Protection Project (EqualProtect.org)CLE Cost:$25/Member$50/Non-MemberTo register for CLE credit, click the link at the top of the page. CLE Info

Harvard released its admissions demographic data for the Class of 2028 last week. This year more so than many years past, those numbers were a big deal.Few things at Harvard are as tightly kept a secret as its admissions process. Every year, tens of thousands of applicants around the world hit submit, hope for the best. And then… it's sort of a black box. The applications get sent off through the portal. Harvard's admissions officers do their thing. And then on decision day, people get a yes, a maybe, or a no. At least, that's how it used to be. For the past decade, Harvard's admissions processes have been under the microscope. Its details scrutinized again, and again, and again — in the public eye, in a public controversy that made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. It hinged on how Harvard thinks about race in its admission process, and whether its practices give preference to some racial groups more than others. On one end, we had SFFA: Students for Fair Admissions, led by a man named Ed Blum, alleging that Harvard's admissions affirmative action practices did unfairly advantage some racial groups more than others. That they did break the law. On the other, we had Harvard insisting that affirmative action was absolutely essential to creating a more diverse Harvard. That there'd be no way to maintain its diversity without it. In June of last year, after nearly a decade of lawsuits, the Supreme Court weighed in. In a decision that made waves around the world, the Supreme Court ruled SFFA's way. It said that Harvard would have to end all of its racial preferences in admissions. And Harvard said it would comply.So all eyes turned to Harvard's demographic numbers for the Class of 2028: the first class applied and admitted after the ruling. The first chance to see the ruling's true impact on the University. Last week, after being delayed for months, those numbers came out. If people thought those numbers would tell the whole story, they were disappointed. Because they didn't. But, if you looked closely, there was still a lot to see. And that's exactly what our reporters did. This week on Newstalk, Harvard's demographics for the class of 2028.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v President and Fellows of Harvard College. In this case, the court considered this issue: May institutions of higher education use race as a factor in admissions? If so, does Harvard College's and UNC's race-conscious admissions process violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The case was decided on June 29, 2023. The Supreme Court held that the Harvard and the UNC admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion. First, the Court concluded that Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) had organizational standing because it is a voluntary membership organization with identifiable members who support its mission and whom SFFA represents in good faith.  Second, while the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was to ensure that laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of race, both the Supreme Court and the nation failed to uphold this principle, most notably in Plessy v Ferguson, which sanctioned “separate but equal” facilities. However, the landmark case Brown v Board of Education overturned this, and the equal protection principle has since expanded to various areas of life. Any exceptions to equal protection must satisfy “strict scrutiny”; that is, the government must show that the racial classification serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. In Regents of the University of California v Bakke, Justice Lewis Powell's opinion became the touchstone for evaluating the constitutionality of race-based admissions, reasoning that diversity in the student body could be a “compelling state interest,” but that race could only be used as a “plus” in admissions and not as a quota. In Grutter v Bollinger, the Court adopted Powell's viewpoint, while also setting limits to ensure race-based admissions did not result in stereotyping or harm to non-minority applicants, and stating that such race-based programs should eventually come to an end. Harvard's (and UNC's, in the consolidated case) race-based admissions systems fail to meet the strict scrutiny, non-stereotyping, and termination criteria established by Grutter and Bakke. Specifically, the universities could not demonstrate their compelling interests in a measurable way, failed to avoid racial stereotypes, and did not offer a logical endpoint for when race-based admissions would cease. As a result, the programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Court noted that nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh each wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined (except Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case against Harvard). The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET. Brad is first joined by Edwith Theogene, Director of Racial Equity and Justice at CAP Action. The two discuss President Biden's robust whole government approach to equity, his commencement speech this past weekend at Morehouse College, which is predominately attended by African-American students, and how the Supreme Court's SFFA vs Harvard decision has hurt DEI efforts around the country. Edwith also details 'Project 2025,' a right-wing effort to weaponize a potential second Trump term.   Then, Brad Bauman, a Principal in the Raben Group's Strategic Communications practice, talks presidential politics with Brad. Specifically, he examines President Biden's re-election efforts, and what messaging that Democrats should be using to convince voters to given Biden a second term over Trump. In her role at CAP, Edwith Theogene leads American Progress' efforts to develop, communicate, and implement policy ideas that provide a new way forward for a range of equity challenges in an increasingly diverse America, with a particular focus on race and equity. Her handle on X is @WhoIsEdwith. Before joining Raben, Brad Bauman was at Fireside Campaigns, where he helped grow the company from a three-person operation to a full-service communications shop with more than 70 employees within four years. He previously served as executive director of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, where he oversaw the caucus' legislative, communications, and political operations for over 80 members of Congress.  The website for the Raben Group is www.Raben.co and Brad Bauman's handle on X is @bradbaumn. Brad Bannon writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.'  He's on the National Journal's panel of political insiders and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. You can read Brad's columns at www.MuckRack.com/Brad-Bannon. His handle on X is @BradBannon. You can watch the show's livestream at any of the following three links: X: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1ZkJzjLejWaJv Facebook:https://fb.watch/sbLGyFV5hd/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/live/9xH4EI_aeaw?si=pIbf48exNBdORSf7

On March 5, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas entered a declaratory judgment and nationwide injunction against the Minority Business Development Agency, preventing the agency from extending a federally-sponsored racial preference to groups seeking to access capital and government contracts. This case, Nuziard v. MBDA, expands upon last summer's Supreme Court ruling in SFFA v. Harvard, which struck down affirmative action in college admissions. Daniel Lennington of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, who litigated the case, discussed the case and its impact on the future of equality.

The panel will discuss how these decisions are transforming the admissions process in higher education and the impact on the legal profession. Included in the discussion will be the response from academia, the permissible limits of the use of race in admissions after these decisions, and what impact this is expected to have on corporate America and the legal profession. Featuring:Prof. Tracey Maclin, Raymond & Miriam Ehrlich Chair in US Constitutional Law , University of Florida Levin College of LawCameron Norris, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLCDevon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal OpportunityModerator: Hon. Meredith Sasso, Justice, Florida Supreme Court

Drs. Heard & Heard-Garris have firmly launched into the new year, but Flesh & Bold wouldn't be Flesh & Bold, without a Year ‘N Review episode. They give you their take on the top events of 2023–from the most talked-about political and cultural events including those that pushed you, had you crying, and others that had you laughing. Dr. Heard-Garris mispronounces ERAS and Dr. Heard, gives us his hot take on Tay-Tay and the Barbie. Wanna guess which events they choose to highlight and why? Which events were most salient for you? Let's see if you agree with our hosts. Please don't forget to like, share, and discuss!Producers: Nevin J. Heard and Nia J. Heard-Garris Music: “Clay”; “LA”; “Sneak Chase” by Podington BearReferenceshttps://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/affirmative-action-supreme-court-caseshttps://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1181138066/affirmative-action-supreme-court-decisionhttps://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/sffa-v-harvard-faq/#:~:text=SFFA%20is%20an%20organization%20led,the%20landmark%20case%20Fisher%20v.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-year-in-review-top-news-stories-of-2023-month-by-month/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-vote-matt-gaetz-kevin-mccarthy-motion-to-vacate-watch-live-stream-today-2023-10-03/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-year-in-review-top-news-stories-of-2023-month-by-month/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-year-in-review-top-news-stories-of-2023-month-by-month/

On today's episode, we interview Dr. Eujin Park, who teaches at the Stanford Graduate School of Education. We discuss the implications of the Supreme Court decisions in the SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC cases, and we examine what the elimination of affirmative action means for university admissions moving forward. Producers/Hosts: Catherine Titzer and Elsa McElhinney Excerpts of student section sourced from Dr. Park's Stanford Profile.

This Day in Legal History: Eugene Debs Sentenced On December 15, 1894, a significant event unfolded in the annals of American labor history. Eugene V. Debs, a prominent labor leader and later a key figure in the American socialist movement, faced the legal consequences of his role in the Pullman railroad strike. The strike, which began in May 1894, was a pivotal moment in labor relations and marked a significant clash between workers' rights and corporate interests.The Pullman Strike had its roots in the economic depression of the 1890s. The Pullman Palace Car Company, known for manufacturing luxury railroad cars, drastically cut wages while maintaining high rents in the company town where workers lived. This led to widespread discontent and eventually, under the leadership of Debs and the American Railway Union (ARU), a massive strike that paralyzed rail traffic in the Midwest.The federal government's response to the strike was severe. It viewed the strike as a direct challenge to federal authority and the mail system, as many railroads carried mail. The government obtained an injunction against the strike leaders, invoking the Sherman Antitrust Act, traditionally used against monopolies, in an unprecedented manner against a labor union.Debs, refusing to comply with the injunction, was arrested and charged with conspiracy to obstruct mail delivery and interstate commerce. His trial brought national attention to the plight of the working class and the legal boundaries of labor disputes. On December 15, he was found guilty and sentenced to six months in prison.His imprisonment marked a turning point in his life and career. It was during his time in jail that Debs began to shift his views, moving from a more traditional labor leader to a dedicated socialist. He read extensively, including the works of Karl Marx, and emerged from prison a changed man, eventually running for President of the United States as a Socialist candidate multiple times.The Pullman Strike and Debs' subsequent trial and imprisonment highlighted the growing tensions in American society over industrialization, workers' rights, and corporate power. It also set precedents for the use of federal power in labor disputes and marked the beginning of a more militant phase in the American labor movement.Today, December 15, serves as a reminder of Eugene V. Debs' impact on labor history and the ongoing struggle for workers' rights. His dedication to improving the conditions of the working class and his transformation during his incarceration remain key chapters in the legal and labor history of the United States.California is taking proactive steps to enhance its deepfake protections, especially with the looming threat of these technologies in upcoming elections and their misuse in pornography. The state, a leader in anti-deepfake legislation since 2019, already has laws allowing victims of deepfakes to sue distributors. However, lawmakers, recognizing the rapid advancements in AI, are considering expanding these laws.The current legislation in California, spearheaded by Assemblymember Marc Berman, focuses on two areas: pornography and political elections. Both laws provide victims with legal recourse, but there's a growing consensus that more needs to be done. Assemblymember Gail Pellerin emphasizes the urgency, given the ease with which AI can spread misinformation.While these measures are seen as important, their enforcement and effectiveness have been questioned. Critics, like Brandie Nonnecke from UC Berkeley, argue that the laws don't prevent the initial harm caused by deepfakes. She points out the difficulty in enforcing the laws, such as the challenge of proving 'actual malice' in cases.A significant challenge to California's efforts is the potential conflict with federal law, particularly Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects social media platforms from liability for user-generated content. California's current law does not hold these platforms accountable for monitoring deepfakes, a stance that could change with new legislation.Any new laws will also need to navigate First Amendment concerns, especially regarding satire and parody. Drew Liebert of the California Institute for Technology and Democracy suggests reevaluating traditional interpretations of the First Amendment in light of AI's risks to democracy.Proposed solutions include outright bans on AI in political communications and stricter guidelines for identifying altered content. Nonnecke suggests that technical solutions exist for social media platforms to flag AI-generated content. Enforcement mechanisms in new bills could range from the threat of lawsuits to criminal penalties, a path other states have followed.Assemblymember Tri Ta proposed a bill criminalizing the distribution of sexual deepfake content, but it saw little progress. Meanwhile, Berman is considering legislation to strengthen the existing deepfake laws.As AI technology continues to evolve, California's approach to regulating deepfakes remains a critical issue, particularly with the 2024 election poised to be a significant test of these laws and their effectiveness in the face of advanced AI threats.California Looks to Boost Deepfake Protections Before ElectionsA U.S. federal judge has refused to block the U.S. Naval Academy's race-conscious admissions policy. This decision came after Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a group opposing affirmative action, requested a preliminary injunction against the Naval Academy's consideration of race in admissions. The judge, Richard Bennett, appointed by former President George W. Bush, ruled that SFFA failed to demonstrate that the Academy's policy was discriminatory and violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection rights.The judge's decision acknowledges the Supreme Court's June ruling, which invalidated similar admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. However, the Supreme Court's decision contained an exemption for military academies, recognizing their potentially distinct interests. This exemption was a key factor in Judge Bennett's decision to reject SFFA's request.During the court proceedings, the U.S. Department of Justice argued that the military has valid reasons for considering race in admissions to ensure a diverse officer corps for an increasingly diverse armed force. The judge, with over 20 years of military service, cited the history of racial tensions in the military as a context for the current policy.The judge plans to issue a written ruling soon and expedite the trial on the merits of the case, anticipating that it could eventually reach the Supreme Court. SFFA's lawyer indicated a possible appeal, while Edward Blum, founder of SFFA, has not commented yet.The case highlights ongoing debates about race-conscious admissions policies in the U.S., particularly in military academies, and the Biden administration's defense of these policies as crucial for addressing the underrepresentation of minority officers in the military. The Naval Academy's current demographics show disparities in racial representation among officers, underscoring the policy's relevance.US judge won't block US Naval Academy's race-conscious admissions policy | ReutersElliott Portnoy, the CEO of Dentons, one of the world's largest law firms, has announced he will step down from his role in November next year. This decision marks a significant leadership change at the firm, which has experienced a period of aggressive international expansion and restructuring. Under Portnoy's tenure, Dentons has grown substantially through global mergers, including a notable combination with Chinese mega-firm Dacheng in 2015, which later ended due to new Chinese national security restrictions.Portnoy's departure follows other recent leadership changes at Dentons, including the replacement of the U.S. branch CEO and the retirement of the global chairman role. Despite losing about half of its attorneys after parting with its Chinese branch, Dentons has continued its expansion strategy, recently combining with Philippine law firm PJS Law to establish a presence in Southeast Asia.Dentons, which employs a Swiss verein business structure, allows its international branches to operate independently while sharing a common brand. Portnoy emphasized that his successor would need to be committed to the firm's global growth strategy, a key differentiator for Dentons in the legal market.The firm is currently in the process of hiring an executive search firm to identify Portnoy's replacement, considering both internal and external candidates. Despite the leadership transition, Dentons aims to maintain its strong performance and growth, particularly in the United States, where it has integrated several local and regional firms since 2020.Law firm Dentons' CEO to step down next year | ReutersThe 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld the convictions of two former executives of Acclarent Inc, a medical device company now part of Johnson & Johnson. William Facteau, the ex-CEO, and Patrick Fabian, former vice president of sales, were found guilty of distributing a medical device for unapproved uses. The product in question was the Relieva Stratus MicroFlow Spacer, or Stratus, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had only cleared for delivering saline after sinus surgery, not for delivering steroids as the executives promoted.Facteau and Fabian were convicted in 2016 on misdemeanor charges for introducing adulterated and misbranded medical devices into interstate commerce. However, they were acquitted of more serious felony fraud charges. Last year, they were fined $1 million and $500,000, respectively, following a four-year sentencing delay. Acclarent, acquired by J&J in 2010, had previously settled related civil claims for $18 million in 2016.On appeal, the defense argued that their convictions violated free speech and due process rights and were based on a misinterpretation of an FDA regulation about a device's "intended use." However, the court rejected these arguments, with U.S. Circuit Judge Kermit Lipez stating that the law was clear enough to indicate when distributing a device with an unapproved intended use would be criminally liable.Former medical device execs at J&J unit lose appeal of convictions | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In June the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Court observers have put forth different analyses […]

In June the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Court observers have put forth different analyses concerning how far-reaching this decision may be. Will corporate diversity programs be stopped? How will hiring in the public and private sectors change? What about government initiatives and the public procurement process?As employers adjust their programs and new litigation progresses through the courts, lawyers are working to advise their clients for whatever may come. Please join us as an expert panel addresses these questions and more in pursuit of understanding the greater legal landscape after SFFA.

On this day, November 24, in legal history, a pivotal event unfolded in Czechoslovakia, marking a significant turning point in the country's journey towards democracy. In 1989, the leaders of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, under mounting pressure and facing an undeniable surge for change, resigned from their positions. This resignation was a direct response to the widespread protests and political movements demanding democratic reforms, a wave that had been sweeping across Eastern Europe following the decline of Soviet influence in the region.Central to this movement in Czechoslovakia was Vaclav Havel, a distinguished playwright and political dissident, who emerged as a leading figure in the opposition. Havel, who had long been an outspoken critic of the Communist regime, played a crucial role in the Velvet Revolution, a peaceful series of protests that ultimately led to the end of 41 years of Communist rule in Czechoslovakia. His actions, characterized by non-violent resistance and powerful advocacy for human rights, not only symbolized the yearning for freedom and democracy but also inspired a nation to strive for these ideals.The resignation of the Communist Party leaders on this day was a landmark victory for the Velvet Revolution and paved the way for significant legal and political changes in Czechoslovakia. This event marked the beginning of a transition from a one-party system to a parliamentary democracy, a transition that culminated in the election of Vaclav Havel as the first democratically elected President of Czechoslovakia in December 1989. His presidency represented not only a new era for Czechoslovakia but also symbolized the triumph of democratic principles over authoritarian rule in the post-Cold War era.The United Nations Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights, Marcos A. Orellana, has initiated an investigation into three companies historically linked to DuPont, along with the governments of the Netherlands and the United States. This probe concerns the human rights and environmental impacts stemming from the release of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from a Fayetteville, North Carolina plant. In letters sent to these entities, Orellana expressed deep concern over the apparent disregard for human rights and environmental protections demonstrated by DuPont de Nemours Inc., the Chemours Co. LLC, and Corteva Agriscience LLC in their handling of PFAS, known for their potential harmful effects.Chemours responded with details of their efforts to control PFAS release at their Fayetteville Works factory, including significant pollution control measures and water treatment systems, which have cost over $200 million. They also highlighted a barrier wall to prevent chemical migration to local waters and provided data showing decreasing PFAS levels in the adjacent Cape Fear River. Corteva, on the other hand, clarified that it is an independent agricultural company and has neither produced nor sold the PFAS in question, though it inherited some liabilities related to PFAS under a 2021 settlement.The Netherlands detailed its compliance with international law in its dealings with Chemours, including requesting U.S. EPA permission for PFAS waste export from a Dutch Chemours plant to the North Carolina facility, a move highlighted by Orellana as potentially exacerbating the problem.Orellana criticized the U.S. for inadequate health and environmental protections, alleging that American regulatory failures have deprived North Carolina communities of essential information to prevent harm and seek reparation. He pointed out that legal actions against the companies have been insufficient, with enforcement and remediation measures falling short. This, according to Orellana, undermines the community members' rights to information and effective remedies. As of the report, responses from the U.S. government and DuPont were not immediately available on the UN's website.You will remember we reported on 3M's $10.3 billion PFAS settlement back in September, it appears likely as more is learned about PFAS that more litigation and ultimately more settlements will be in the offing. UN Probes DuPont, Chemours Over Human Rights Harms From PFASA $25 million settlement between Apple Inc. and the Department of Justice (DOJ) over allegations of hiring bias against U.S. citizens has underscored a broader dilemma in Big Tech regarding compliance with immigration laws. The case highlights a disconnect between the Department of Labor (DOL) and the DOJ in enforcing these laws, particularly in the context of sponsoring foreign workers for lawful permanent residency. Apple's case is the second major enforcement action against a U.S. employer for biases in sponsoring foreign workers, following a similar case with Facebook in 2021.Under the PERM (Permanent Labor Certification) program, companies sponsoring foreign workers must meet additional DOL recruiting requirements, which some attorneys find outdated, such as advertising in Sunday print newspapers. Despite adherence to DOL regulations, companies like Apple find themselves scrutinized by the DOJ for potential recruitment failures. The DOJ alleged that Apple took measures to depress applications from U.S. workers, including requiring paper applications and not advertising PERM positions on its external website.Large tech firms are particularly vulnerable to such scrutiny due to their heavy use of the PERM process and the H-1B visa program. For many foreign workers employed in the U.S. on temporary visas, progress toward permanent residency is crucial for renewing their temporary status, especially given the long wait times for green cards. The DOJ's position is that employers are not permitted to deter job applications based on citizenship or immigration status. However, this has raised concerns among immigration attorneys who argue that complying with the letter of DOL laws might still invite DOJ enforcement actions, creating a challenging environment for employers to navigate.The Apple case, following the Facebook settlement, signifies a growing enforcement trend by the DOJ and raises questions about the consistency and clarity of regulations governing the sponsorship of foreign workers for permanent residency. It also suggests the need for federal agencies to harmonize their approaches and update recruitment mandates to reflect modern hiring practices.Apple's Hiring Bias Case Reveals Big Tech Foreign Worker DilemmaThe Biden administration has defended the race-conscious admissions policy of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in a recent legal challenge. In a brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, the administration argued that the academy's affirmative action policies are crucial for ensuring a diverse and effective military force, which is integral to national security. This stance comes despite the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling that struck down similar race-conscious admissions policies used by civilian colleges.The lawsuit, filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a group founded by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum, alleges that West Point's practices discriminate against white applicants, violating the equal protection principle of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment. However, the Justice Department contends that SFFA lacks legal standing to sue and points out critical differences between civilian universities and military academies in their use of race in admissions.The administration emphasizes that diversity in the Army officer corps, fostered in part by West Point's admissions practices, results in a more effective, lethal, and legitimate force in the eyes of the nation and the world. The lawsuit seeks to end an exemption that allows military academies to consider race as a factor in admissions, an issue the Supreme Court did not address in its recent ruling.The Justice Department's brief highlights the racial disparities in the Army, noting that while Black and Hispanic people make up a significant portion of active duty enlisted personnel, they are underrepresented in officer positions. In contrast, white individuals constitute a larger percentage of officers compared to their representation in the enlisted corps. The case, which will have arguments heard on December 21, raises crucial questions about the role of race in military academy admissions and its impact on the composition and effectiveness of the U.S. military.Biden administration defends West Point's race-conscious admissions policy | ReutersThe 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans is proposing a rule requiring lawyers to certify their use of artificial intelligence (AI) in drafting legal briefs. This proposed rule, a first among the nation's 13 federal appeals courts, aims to regulate the use of generative AI tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT. Lawyers would need to confirm that any AI-generated text in court filings has been reviewed for accuracy, particularly citations and legal analysis. Failure to comply could result in filings being stricken and potential sanctions.This move comes as the legal community increasingly grapples with the implications of AI in the courtroom. The need for such a rule was highlighted by an incident in June, where two New York lawyers faced sanctions for submitting a brief with fictitious case citations generated by ChatGPT. The 5th Circuit's initiative follows similar actions by district courts in its jurisdiction, including the Eastern District of Texas, which recently announced a rule requiring lawyers to verify any computer-generated content.These measures reflect a growing awareness of the potential inaccuracies in AI-generated legal content and the importance of ensuring that AI tools do not replace the critical thinking and problem-solving skills required in legal practice. The 5th Circuit is currently seeking public comment on this proposal until January 4.US appeals court proposes lawyers certify review of AI use in filings | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Since the U.S. Supreme Court largely outlawed affirmative action in higher education earlier this year, there's been discussion about what the decision could mean for the future of DEI practices in employment. Taonga Leslie speaks with Marcus Childress about the chilling effect that SFFA v. Harvard has had and how employers can continue to advance DEI in the wake of the decision.  Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.org Today's Host: Taonga Leslie, ACS Director of Policy and Program for Racial Justice Guest: Marcus Childress, Special Counsel, Jenner & Block Link: Supreme Court decision in SFFA v. Harvard Link: Report and Recommendations of the New York State Bar Association Task Force on Advancing Diversity Link: Video of ACS's  program,  "Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at Work in the Wake of SFFA" Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube ----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2023.

This year the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Court’s ruling elevates a colorblind reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the college admissions context, the decision makes unconstitutional certain policies that would favor one applicant over another on the basis of that applicant’s race. College admissions offices across the country will have to alter the policies they’ve used for decades. How will they adapt? Will facially race-neutral policies aiming to achieve a desired racial balance for accepted classes be created as a proxy? Will colleges attempt to sidestep the ruling or find legally permissible means of achieving their objectives? If so, how will the courts respond?Some observers argue that the decision in SFFA should be expected to affect diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts outside of college admissions. Will public and private employers have to change their hiring practices? Will competitive K-12 schools adjust their admissions policies? What about scholarships? Government contracting? How far-reaching will the Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment ultimately be?This panel will provide a comprehensive review of SFFA and explore its consequences.Featuring:Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law SchoolHon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Randall L. Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolMr. Devon Westhill, President & General Counsel, Center for Equal OpportunityModerator: Hon. Stephen A. Vaden, United States Court of International TradeOverflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms

In today's episode, I sit down with Jay Rosner to explore the realm of standardized testing, discuss fairness in education, and dissect the recent legal battles over affirmative action in college admissions.BIOJay Rosner is an admission testing and test-prep expert based in the San Francisco Bay area. He is the Executive Director of The Princeton Review Foundation, a small nonprofit that provides heavily subsidized, high-quality test-prep programs for organizations serving low- income, underrepresented minority students. His multifaceted work focuses upon fairness in admissions tests, and he speaks and writes about testing as an activist, advocate, expert witness, consultant, researcher, organizer and lapsed lawyer. Jay testified as an expert witness on the LSAT on behalf of minority student intervenors at the trial of the landmark Grutter affirmative action case. More recently, he organized the intervention by individual minority students in SFFA v. Harvard, and had been an ongoing participant in the process leading to the historic 2020 decision by the University of California system to become test free in undergraduate admissions. His research contribution is his non- technical analysis of how test question selection methods subjectively and consistently produce dramatic test score disparities. Jay's current focus is reducing the discriminatory impacts primarily of the LSAT, and secondarily, of the MCAT and SAT, in order to enhance integration and fair representation. Follow Jay on LinkedInAccess free resources and learn more about Sheila and her team at Signet Education at signeteducation.com or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/sheilaakbar/.

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against race-based admissions at college campuses nationwide after hearing companion cases by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) that challenged admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC). SFFA overturned the 2003 ruling by a more liberal Supreme Court in the case Grutter v. Bollinger, which affirmed that a student's race could be used as one of multiple factors in admissions decisions at the University of Michigan.  Affirmative action was rejected by the conservative majority on the bench, which agreed that UNC's policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and that Harvard's affirmative action plan discriminates against Asian American students, a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But did it really change the way campus admissions will operate?  In their forthcoming paper in the Texas Law Review, “The Goose and the Gander: How Conservative Precedents Will Save Campus Affirmative Action,” Professor Guha Krishnamurthi of the University of Maryland Carey Law School contends (along with his co-author Peter Salib) that though affirmative action is legally dead, race will still figure into holistic admissions procedures-- just not as a check-box item. In this episode of Discovery, we speak with Prof. Krishnamurthi about the previous state of play in race-based admissions and his opinion that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling against campus affirmative action has no practical effect on the way schools operate. He argues that due to the Supreme Court's decades-old rulings that statistical proof cannot carry a constitutional discrimination claim, universities will only be liable in litigation if they admit that they practice affirmative action, so most schools will pursue diversity by other means, simply by operating in the shadows.

On Thursday, June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Two months later, The […]

On Thursday, June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Two months later, The U.S. Departments of Justice and Education issued a joint guidance document addressing the decision.Court observers have put forth different analyses concerning how far-reaching this decision may be. Will corporate diversity programs be stopped? What about government initiatives? The jury is still out, but one thing will certainly change – college admissions.How will college admissions offices across the country change their policies? What should high school students know about the changing landscape? What methods will be employed in pursuit of racial diversity? Please join us as an expert panel addresses these questions and more in pursuit of understanding college admissions after SFFA.

Please email comments and questions to law.jd.admissions@umich.edu and put "A2Z Vlog" in the subject. Helpful links: A2Z Blog: https://experience.law.umich.edu/a2z/ Michigan Law Admissions: https://experience.law.umich.edu/ Follow Michigan Law on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/umichlaw/ Follow Michigan Law on Twitter: https://twitter.com/UMichLaw Follow on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umichlaw

Today, we have a special episode—an audio recording from our August 30 2023 Deans' Roundtable webinar. Tajira McCoy, a 7Sage admissions consultant, hosted a discussion with deans from law schools around the country. Listen to their thoughts on the aftermath of the Supreme Court's Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision and the impact of the ruling on law school application requirements this fall. Taking the LSAT soon? Check out The 7Sage LSAT Podcast for top tips from our expert tutors—tune in wherever you get your podcasts.

Introduction by Greg Burnep ... What does affirmative action mean in 2023? ... Randy's distinction between “disadvantage” and “discrimination” ... Diversity's double-talk ... Did the Supreme Court say discrimination is allowed at military academies? ... Glenn: Affirmative action distracts us from bigger problems ... Affirmative action is an elite problem ... Affirmative action as an insurance policy ... The stigmatization of affirmative action beneficiaries ... Glenn: Affirmative action has been a net positive, but it's time to stop ... Q&A: Does historical injustice alone justify affirmative action? ... Q&A: Can and should colleges use loopholes to get around Students for Fair Admissions? ... Q&A: Does the “need” for affirmative action say something race or education? ... Q&A: What is the impact of SFFA beyond the university? ... Q&A: What about class-based affirmative action? ...

Introduction by Greg Burnep ... What does affirmative action mean in 2023? ... Randy's distinction between “disadvantage” and “discrimination” ... Diversity's double-talk ... Did the Supreme Court say discrimination is allowed at military academies? ... Glenn: Affirmative action distracts us from bigger problems ... Affirmative action is an elite problem ... Affirmative action as an insurance policy ... The stigmatization of affirmative action beneficiaries ... Glenn: Affirmative action has been a net positive, but it's time to stop ... Q&A: Does historical injustice alone justify affirmative action? ... Q&A: Can and should colleges use loopholes to get around Students for Fair Admissions? ... Q&A: Does the “need” for affirmative action say something race or education? ... Q&A: What is the impact of SFFA beyond the university? ... Q&A: What about class-based affirmative action? ...

The Supreme Court effectively eliminated affirmative action in higher education this June with their rulings in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC. Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk Gersen sits down with Ravi to discuss college admissions in a post-affirmative action world and how colleges and universities will work to ensure they continue to enroll diverse student bodies. Leave us a voicemail with your thoughts on the show! 321-200-0570 Subscribe to our feed on Spotify: http://bitly.ws/zC9K Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/3Gs5YTF Subscribe to our Substack: https://thelostdebate.substack.com/ Follow The Branch on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thebranchmedia/ Follow The Branch on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebranchmedia Follow The Branch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/thebranchmedia The Branch website: http://thebranchmedia.org/ Lost Debate is also available on the following platforms:  Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lost-debate/id1591300785 Google: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vTERJNTc1ODE3Mzk3Nw  Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-lost-debate iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-lost-debate-88330217/ Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/752ca262-2801-466d-9654-2024de72bd1f/the-lost-debate

Please email comments and questions to law.jd.admissions@umich.edu and put "A2Z Vlog" in the subject. Helpful links: A2Z Blog: https://experience.law.umich.edu/a2z/ Michigan Law Admissions: https://experience.law.umich.edu/ Follow Michigan Law on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/umichlaw/ Follow Michigan Law on Twitter: https://twitter.com/UMichLaw Follow on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umichlaw

Scholars and advocates discuss Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Dean Risa Goluboff gave opening remarks. The event was sponsored by the American Constitution Society, the Black Law Students Association and the Center for the Study of Race and Law. (University of Virginia School of Law, Sept. 19, 2023)

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and econometrician Peter Arcidiacono discuss the recent landmark decision by the Supreme Court to end Affirmative Action, how his research was instrumental in that outcome, why merit is repeatedly proven to be the best indicator of success, how compassion is used to cloak racial discrimination, and what might actually yield results in service to the under-resourced communities across the United States. Peter Arcidiacono is the William Henry Glasson Professor of Economics at Duke University. He received his PhD from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1999 and has taught at Duke University ever since. He is a fellow of the Econometric Society and the International Association of Applied Econometricians. He is best known for his work in three areas: college major choice, affirmative action in higher education, and structural estimation of dynamic discrete choice models. He served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court cases SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC, examining the role race played in the admissions process at both institutions.

This week, we're focused on how the U.S. Supreme Court's Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) ruling could impact workplace diversity efforts. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) investment has been a strong strategy for success for many employers, but after the Supreme Court's SFFA ruling, the outlook for employment DEI is unclear. What's next? Epstein Becker Green attorneys Carter M. DeLorme and Shawndra G. Jones tell us more. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw313 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Join us for a discussion on one of the most complex topics in higher education today: race-conscious admissions. In Part 1 of this two-part episode, we delve into the legal aftermath of the recent Supreme Court decisions (SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC); the use of race as a factor in college and graduate school admissions; and how the recent court decision will affect creating more equitable and diverse medical school student bodies. AAMC President and CEO David J. Skorton, MD, is joined in conversation by Mark Henderson, MD, and Heather Alarcon, JD, for an enlightening and thought-provoking discussion around this crucial topic. Henderson is professor of internal medicine, vice chair for education, and associate dean for admissions at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine. He also served as residency program director at the University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio and at UC Davis. The state of California banned affirmative action in 1996, and Henderson provides insight into how medical schools can still have a diverse student body based on his experiences at UC Davis, which is one of the most diverse medical schools in the country. As the senior director of legal services at the AAMC, Alarcon is an expert in matters ranging from civil rights and employment law to national policy issues impacting medical education. She was one of the authors of the AAMC's amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Harvard and UNC cases in support of race-conscious admissions. Beyond the White Coat is hosted by David J. Skorton, MD, and our executive producer is Zenneia McLendon. Our project manager is Brittany Loca. This episode was produced by Aaron Dillard and edited and engineered by Laura Zelaya. Elena Marinaccio is our copy editor, and De'Angello Powe made all our graphics. Our sound design is by De'Angello Powe and David J. Skorton. Rachel Bunn provided additional support for this episode.

In this episode, The Wigs discuss a massively controversial recent decision of the US Supreme Court in which the so-called conservative "super majority" struck down as unlawful affirmative action on the basis of race in university admissions. The case is known as Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard and involved two separate cases one involving Harvard, the other the University of North Carolina. The wigs discuss the 14th amendment, the impact of affirmative action, the long-standing legal test for affirmative action as an accepted derogation from the 14th amendment known as "strict scrutiny" and why the majority said the test wasn't met and the practices unlawful. The Plaintiff 'Students for Fair Admission' or SFFA  brought the case on behalf of a group of Asian Americans denied entry to university in the context of affirmative action policies they alleged had worked against them. SFFA describes itself on its website as, "a nonprofit membership group of more than 20,000 students, parents, and others who believe that racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. Our mission is to support and participate in litigation that will restore the original principles of our nation's civil rights movement: A student's race and ethnicity should not be factors that either harm or help that student to gain admission to a competitive university".See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College signals a radical shift in how the Supreme Court views favoring racial diversity and affirmative action in higher education. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion in SFFA v. Harvard, rejects the use of race as a factor in college admissions, asserting that this practice, previously accepted under prior cases such as Bakke and Fisher (see additional resources), is no longer permissible. Professor Theodore Shaw of UNC Law School explains the evolution of affirmative action and racial diversity programs and the impact of this decision on our understanding of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College signals a radical shift in how the Supreme Court views favoring racial diversity and affirmative action in higher education. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion in SFFA v. Harvard, rejects the use of race as a factor in college admissions, asserting that this practice, previously accepted under prior cases such as Bakke and Fisher (see additional resources), is no longer permissible. Professor Theodore Shaw of UNC Law School explains the evolution of affirmative action and racial diversity programs and the impact of this decision on our understanding of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Part One of Two Jess and Teen sit down with returning guest Kenny Xu ("An Inconvenient Minority") to talk about SFFA's victory in the Supreme Court against Harvard, the state of education in America, and being an Asian American Republican. Please join us on Patreon to access Part 2: www.patreon.com/planamag TWITTER: Kenny (@kennymxu) THEME MUSIC: EFPA Theme:
 "Escape From Plan A" by Ciel (@aerialist)

Affirmative action plans, though perhaps most associated with college admissions and higher education, actually crop up in a wide array of spaces, including in the context of employment. In this podcast, Eric Dreiband breaks down how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies in the context of voluntary affirmative action plans. He explains not only what the criteria for such plans are, but also the risks employers should consider, what, if anything, has changed post SFFA v. Harvard, and when it could be legal to discriminate based on protected characteristics in the context of employment.

In this episode, I'll tackle the recent supreme court decision that effectively ends affirmative action. Join me as I delve into what necessitates affirmative action, the racial wealth gap, and the stunning hypocrisy of educational outcomes in our nation. Follow on instagram @getwoke_dietrying to join the conversation, get more information, or share your thoughts! Please subscribe, rate, and leave a review on your preferred listening platform. And make sure to share far and wide! Resources referenced: supreme court rulings, affirmative action definition, affirmative action is not, why we need affirmative action, who benefits the most, Bakke decision, definitions, not enough, still necessary, SFFA v. Harvard overview, majority opinion, Clarence Thomas, legacy admissions, college admissions scandal, Ohio mom, Tanya McDowell case, Joy-Ann Reid quote --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robyn-toran/support

Liz and Andrew welcome Prof. Guha Krishnamurthi to the show to discuss his forthcoming law review article about the future of affirmative action in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in SFFA v. Harvard. Notes SFFA v. Harvard https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Peter Arcidiacono is an economist at Duke University and an expert on affirmative action. Arcidiacono served as an expert witness for Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) in SFFA v. Harvard. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Peter Arcidiacono discuss the role that racial preferences have played in the admissions processes of elite American universities in recent decades; the workarounds that universities are likely to use in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision; and why real progress for less privileged students will require fundamental changes that look beyond the admissions practices of a few elite universities. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community  Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John Taylor Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 For over 40 years, affirmative action was one of the nation's key tools in helping create diverse working and learning environments. The practice of affirmative action in higher education admissions processes has been challenged several times over, and on June 29, 2023 the Supreme Court overturned previous rulings on the practice's legality in their decisions in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC Chapel-Hill. This episode was recorded before a decision was issued in Harvard and UNC.  Despite the decision restricting the discretion of educators and admissions officers, they are still charged with the moral imperative to promote diverse learning environments. Hosted by Dr. Kesha Moore, this episode explores how affirmative action can create a thriving multiracial, multiethnic democracy, and what we can learn from institution of higher education in states that have banned affirmative action while still prioritizing diversity. Guests:  Michaele Turnage Young, Senior Counsel (LDF),  Femi Ogundele, Associate Vice Chancellor of Admissions and Enrollment (University of California Berkeley), and Muskaan Arshad, Student (Harvard College)Hosted by Kesha Moore. Produced by Keecee DeVenny, Jackie O'Neil, and Kesha Moore. If you enjoyed this episode please consider leaving a review and helping others find it! To keep up with the work of LDF please visit our website at www.naacpldf.org and follow us on social media at @naacp_ldf. To keep up with the work of the Thurgood Marshall Institute, please visit our website at www.tminstituteldf.org and follow us on Twitter at @tmi_ldf.

美国最高院2022-2023 Term 已经结束，今年出现了许多改变美国社会和法律现状的判决，今天给大家分析其中最重要的几个。1. STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., PETITIONER v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 和 STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., PETITIONER v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

美国最高院2022-2023 Term 已经结束，今年出现了许多改变美国社会和法律现状的判决，今天给大家分析其中最重要的几个。1. STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., PETITIONER v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 和 STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., PETITIONER v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA欢迎关注某b站“化肥化灰”

美国最高院2022-2023 Term 已经结束，今年出现了许多改变美国社会和法律现状的判决，今天给大家分析其中最重要的几个。1. STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., PETITIONER v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 和 STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., PETITIONER v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA欢迎关注某b站“化肥化灰”

美国最高院2022-2023 Term 已经结束，今年出现了许多改变美国社会和法律现状的判决，今天给大家分析其中最重要的几个。1. STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., PETITIONER v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 和 STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., PETITIONER v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA 欢迎关注某b站“化肥化灰

In this special edition, Art Coleman (@ArtColemanDC), managing partner and co-founder of EducationCounsel (and a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights), shares the initial chapters of a playbook admissions officers can follow to move forward with confidence (and care) in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC. We discuss what colleges should (and shouldn't do),  what people are getting wrong in their interpretations of the rulings, and what the future might hold.Art provides helpful advice on thoughtful design around scholarships and financial aid programs as well as broader recruitment initiatives, while calling for colleges to use a lens shaped by "a design associated with the DEI goals ... that drive their mission."Read: EducationCounsel's Preliminary Guidance Regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC. (with ongoing updates)Many thanks to the National Association for College Admission Counseling for supporting this podcast through the NACAC Podcast Network.Theme music arranged by Ryan Anselment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has released its long-awaited decision in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, striking down colleges' use of race-conscious admissions nationwide. Madelyn Wessel, senior counsel at Hogan Lovells, and Peter McDonough, vice president and general counsel at ACE, join Mushtaq Gunja to offer initial thoughts about the ruling and potential implications for students and higher education institutions while considering what all of this means for the future of diversity, access, and opportunity on campus and beyond. Tweet suggestions, links, and questions to @ACEducation or podcast@acenet.edu.  Here are some of the links and references from this week's show: The SFFA v. Harvard and UNC Race in Admissions Cases: Reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling American Council on Education | July 6, 2023 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College U.S. Supreme Court | June 29, 2023 Supreme Court Strikes Down Race in Admissions Policies American Council on Education | June 30, 2023 Transcript: Contingency Planning and Prep for a Post–Supreme Court Decision Landscape American Council on Education | April 19, 2023 ACE Leads Nearly 40 Associations Urging the Supreme Court to Reaffirm the Legality and Value of Race-Conscious Admissions American Council on Education | August 1, 2022 Affirmative Action Was Banned at Two Top Universities. They Say They Need It. The New York Times (sub. req.) | Oct. 31, 2022 Without Affirmative Action, How Will Colleges Seek Racial Diversity? The Washington Post (sub. req.) | July 5, 2023 Activists Spurred by Affirmative Action Ruling Challenge Legacy Admissions at Harvard Associated Press | July 3, 2023 Black Colleges Face Crunch as Supreme Court Ruling Drives Influx of Students Bloomberg (sub. req.) | July 5, 2023 Military Academies Exempt from Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Ruling The Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) | June 29, 2023

Ilya Shapiro, Gail Heriot, and Wai Wah Chin discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruling.

Part 1 of 2 Jess, Chris and Teen discuss the Supreme Court opinions on the SFFA lawsuits over race-conscious admissions systems, and provide commentary on the reactions from the Professional Asian Person industrial complex. Please join us on Patreon to access Part 2: www.patreon.com/planamag REFERENCED RESOURCES "Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College" https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf (By Tyler Austin Harper) "I Teach at an Elite College. Here's a Look Inside the Racial Gaming of Admissions." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/opinion/college-admissions-affirmative-action.html?searchResultPosition=36 (By Sarah Mervosh and Troy Closson) "The ‘Unseen' Students in the Affirmative Action Debate" https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/us/affirmative-action-students.html?searchResultPosition=18 (By Jay Caspian Kang) "Why the Champions of Affirmative Action Had to Leave Asian Americans Behind" https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-champions-of-affirmative-action-had-to-leave-asian-americans-behind (By Jeanne Suk-Gersen) "The Secret Joke at the Heart of the Harvard Affirmative-Action Case" https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-secret-joke-at-the-heart-of-the-harvard-affirmative-action-case (By Janelle Wong and Viet Thanh Nguyen) "Affirmative action isn't hurting Asian Americans. Here's why that myth survives" https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-06-14/affirmative-action-supreme-court-harvard-case-asian-americans (By Bertrand Cooper) "The Failure of Affirmative Action" https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/failure-affirmative-action/674439/ (by Chris Jesu Lee) "Don't Trust An Asian American Who Went To Harvard Who Defends Harvard" https://salieriredemption.substack.com/p/dont-trust-an-asian-american-who THEME MUSIC: EFPA Theme:
 "Escape From Plan A" by Ciel (@aerialist)

Liz and Andrew break down the Supreme Court's gutting of what little remained of affirmative action in the just-released decision of SFFA v. Harvard. Notes SFFA v. Harvard https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf SFFA complaint http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Harvard-lawsuit-11-17-14.pdf OA 93 https://openargs.com/oa93-affirmative-action-best-legal-brief-ever-written/ OA 219 - you may be surprised just how minor affirmative action was https://openargs.com/oa219-harvard-and-affirmative-action/ Henry Etkowitz et al, “The Paradox of Critical Mass for Women in Science” https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/uzzi/ftp/paradox.pdf African American wealth https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/06/19/why-racial-wealth-gap-persists-more-than-years-after-emancipation/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On Thursday, June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The opinion jointly addressed the issues presented in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina. The question before the Court was whether the race-conscious admissions systems used by […]

On Thursday, June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The opinion jointly addressed the issues presented in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina. The question before the Court was whether the race-conscious admissions systems used by Harvard and UNC violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and UNC's admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court; Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions; Justices Sotomayor and Jackson filed dissenting opinions. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of SFFA v. Harvard. Please join us as Curt Levey discusses the decision.

In 2003, Professor Brian Fitzpatrick published a piece titled "The Diversity Lie" in which he discussed the recently decided Grutter v. Bollinger case. Twenty years later, the Supreme Court is on the precipice of deciding two important affirmative action cases in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC. How has Professor Fitzpatrick's analysis held up against the test of time? How has the Supreme Court changed? What does the future hold for affirmative action? Can universities install a program of race-neutral affirmative action? Professors Brian Fitzpatrick and Randall Kennedy joined us to consider these questions and more as we reflect on the 20th anniversary of Grutter v. Bollinger.Featuring:--Professor Brian Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt Law School--Professor Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor, Harvard Law School--[Moderator] Ted Frank, Director, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute

Mike Hoa Nguyen, assistant professor of education, faculty affiliate at the Institute for Human Development and Social Change, and faculty affiliate at the Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools at New York University, leads the conversation on affirmative action. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to CFR's Higher Education Webinar. I'm Irina Faskianos, Vice President of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Mike Hoa Nguyen with us to discuss affirmative action. Dr. Nguyen is assistant professor of education at New York University's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. He's also a faculty affiliate at NYU's Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools and a faculty affiliate at NYU's Institute for Human Development and Social Change. Additionally, Dr. Nguyen is a principal investigator of the Minority Serving Institutions Data Project. And prior to coming to NYU he was at the University of Denver. He has extensive professional experience in the federal government and has managed multiple complex, long-term intergovernmental projects and initiatives, focusing on postsecondary education and the judiciary and has published his work widely, including in Educational Researcher, The Journal of Higher Education, and The Review of Higher Education. So Mike, thanks very much for being with us today to talk about affirmative action. Could you give us an overview of where we are, the history of affirmative action, where we are now, and examples of criteria that are used by different institutions? NGUYEN: Well, hello. And thank you so much, Irina. And also thank you to the Council on Foreign Relations for having me here today. It's a real honor. And thank you to many of you who are joining us today out of your busy schedules. I'm sure that many of you have been following the news for Harvard and UNC. And, of course, those cases were just heard at the Supreme Court about a month ago, on Halloween. And so today thank you for those questions. I'd love to be able to spend a little bit of time talking about the history of sort of what led us to this point. I also recognize that many joining us are also experts on this topic. So I really look forward to the conversation after my initial remarks. And so affirmative action, I think, as Philip Rubio has written, comes from centuries-old English legal concept of equity, right, or the administration of justice according to what is fair in a particular situation, as opposed to rigidly following a set of rules. It's defined by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in 1977 as a term that is a broad—a term, in a broad sense, that encompasses any measure beyond a simple termination of discriminatory practice adopted to correct for past or present discrimination or to prevent discrimination from recurring in the future. Academics have defined affirmative action simply as something more than passive nondiscrimination, right. It means various organizations must act positively, affirmatively, and aggressively to remove all barriers, however informal or subtle, that prevent access by minorities and women to their rightful places in the employment and educational institutions of the United States. And certainly one of the earliest appearances of this term, affirmative action, in government documents came when President Kennedy, in his 1961 executive order, where he wrote that the mandate stated that government contractors, specifically those that were receiving federal dollars to, quote, take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and employees are treated during employment without regard of their race, creed, color, or national origin. Certainly President Kennedy created a committee on equal employment opportunity to make recommendations for this. And then later on President Johnson later expressed—I'm sorry—expanded on President Kennedy's approach to take a sort of more active antiracist posture, which he signaled in a commencement speech at Howard University. In the decades following, of course, political-legal attacks have rolled back on how affirmative action can be implemented and for what purposes. So in admissions practices at U.S. colleges and universities today, really they can only consider race as one of many factors through a holistic process or holistic practices if so-called race-neutral approaches to admissions policies have fallen short in allowing for a campus to enroll a racially diverse class in order to achieve or reap the benefits of diversity, the educational benefits of diversity. Federal case law established by the courts have affirmed and reaffirmed that colleges may only consider race as one of many factors for the purposes of obtaining the educational benefits in diversity. So starting with the Bakke decision in the late 1970s, the Court limited the consideration of race in admissions and replaced the rationale for the use of race, specifically the rationale which was addressing historic and ongoing racism or systemic and racial oppression, instead in favor of the diversity rationale. So, in other words, if a college or university wishes to use race in their admissions, they can only do so with the intention of enhancing the educational benefits of all students. It may not legally use race as a part of their admissions process for the purpose of acknowledging historical or contemporary racism as barriers to equity in college access. If we fast-forward to something more recent, the two cases out of Michigan, the Grutter and Gratz case, what we saw there were really—significant part of the discussions of these two cases were really informed and conversations really about the educational benefits of diversity. That was really a key aspect of those cases. Lawsuits challenging the use of race in college admissions after those two cases now can sort of be traced to Edward Blum, a conservative activist, and his organization, Students for Fair Admission, or SFFA. So Blum has really dedicated his life to establishing what he calls a colorblind American society by filing lawsuits with the goal of dismantling laws and policies seeking to advance racial justice. This includes redistricting, voting rights, and, of course, affirmative action. So in 2000—in the 2000s, he recruited Abigail Fisher to challenge the University of Texas in their admissions program. The Court, the Supreme Court, ultimately ruled in favor of Texas in the second Fisher case—Fisher II, as we call it. And so that's actually where we saw Ed Blum alter his tactics. In this case he established SFFA, where he then purposefully recruited Asian Americans as plaintiffs in order to sue Harvard and UNC. So the cases now at Harvard—are now certainly at the Supreme Court. But one sort of less-known case that hasn't got a whole lot of attention, actually, was—that was sort of on the parallel track, actually originated from the U.S. Department of Justice more recently, during the Trump administration, which launched an investigation into Yale's admissions practices, which also focus on Asian Americans. And this was around 2018, so not too long ago. And certainly Asian Americans have been engaged in affirmative action debate since the 1970s. But these lawsuits have really placed them front and center in sort of our national debate. And so I think it's really important to also note that while empirical research demonstrates and shows that the majority of Asian Americans are actually in support of affirmative action, a very vocal minority of Asian Americans are certainly opposed to race-conscious admissions and are part of these lawsuit efforts. But interestingly enough, they've received a large and disproportionate share of media attention and sort of—I stress this only because I think popular press and media have done a not-so-great job at reporting on this. And their framing, I think, sometimes relies on old stereotypes, harmful stereotypes, about Asian Americans, and written in a way that starts with an assumption that all Asian Americans are opposed to affirmative action when, again, empirical research and national polls show that that's certainly not the case, right, and much more complex than that. But anyway, so back to what I was saying earlier, in sort of the waning months of the Trump administration the Department of Justice used those investigations into Yale to file a lawsuit charging that Yale in its admissions practices discriminates against Asian Americans. This lawsuit, the DOJ lawsuit, was dropped in February of 2021 when President Biden took office. So in response to that, SFFA submitted its own lawsuit to Yale based upon similar lines of reasoning. So I think what's—why bring this up? One, because it doesn't get a lot of attention. But two, I think it's a really interesting and curious example. So in the Yale case, as well as in the previous DOJ complaint, Ed Blum notes specifically that they exclude Cambodian Americans, Hmong Americans, Laotian Americans, and Vietnamese Americans from the lawsuit, and thus from his definition of what and who counts as Asian American. I think this intentional exclusion of specific Southeast Asian American groups in Yale, but including them in Harvard, is a really interesting and curious note. I've written in the past that, sort of at the practical level, it's a bit—it's not a bit—it's a lot misleading. It's manipulative and advances a bit of a false narrative about Asian Americans. And I think it engages in what we call sort of a racial project to overtly reclassify the Asian American racial category, relying again on old stereotypes about Asian American academic achievement. But it also sort of counters state-based racial and ethnic classifications used by the Census Bureau, used by the Department of Education, used by OMB, right. It does not consider how Southeast Asian Americans have been and are racialized, as well as how they've built pan-ethnic Asian American coalitions along within and with other Asian American subgroups. So the implications of this sort of intentional racialized action, I think, are threefold. First, this process, sort of trying to redefine who is Asian American and who isn't, demonstrates that SFFA cannot effectively argue that race-conscious admissions harms Asian Americans. They wouldn't be excluded if that was the case. Second, it illustrates that Ed Blum and his crusade for sort of race—not using race in college admissions is actually really not focused on advancing justice for Asian Americans, as he claims. And then finally, I think that this maneuver, if realized, will really disenfranchise educational access and opportunity for many Asian Americans, including Southeast Asian Americans and other communities of color. Of course, this case hasn't received a lot of attention, given that we just heard from Harvard and UNC at the Supreme Court about a month ago. But I think it provides some really important considerations regarding the upcoming Supreme Court decision. Nonetheless the decision for Harvard and UNC, we're all sort of on pins and needles until we hear about it in spring and summer. And I was there in Washington for it, and so what I'd actually like to do is actually share some interesting notes and items that sort of struck out to me during the oral arguments. So I think in both cases we heard the justices ask many questions regarding the twenty-five-year sunset of using race in college admissions, right, something that Justice O'Connor wrote in the Michigan case. I think the solicitor general, Solicitor General Prelogar's response at the conclusion of the case was really insightful. She said—and I'm sort of paraphrasing here about why we—in addressing some of the questions about that twenty-five-year sunset, she basically said that society hasn't made enough progress yet. The arc of progress is slower than what the Grutter court had imagined. And so we just suddenly don't hit 2028—that's twenty-five years from the decision—and then, snap, race is not used in college admissions anymore. There was also a lot of discussion regarding proxy approaches to so-called race-neutral admissions, right, yet still being able to maintain some or similar levels of racial diversity. I think what we know from a lot of empirical research out there is that there's really no good proxy variables for race. Certainly Texas has its 10 percent plan, which really only works to a certain extent and does not actually work well for, say, private schools that draw students from across all fifty states and the territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific. And again, as the solicitor general stated, it doesn't work well for the service academies either, for really similar reasons. I do think the line of questioning from the chief justice again related to what sounded like a carveout exemption for our U.S. military schools, our service academies. What's really interesting, and might be of actually specific interest for the CFR community, of course, our service academies practice affirmative action and are in support of it. And this was also argued in an amicus brief written by retired generals and admirals. And they argued that race-conscious admissions is necessary to build a diverse officer corps at both the service academies as well as ROTC programs at various universities across the country, which, in their words, they say builds a more cohesive, collaborative, and effective fighting unit, especially, quote, given recent international conflicts and humanitarian crises which require our military to perform civil functions and call for heightened cultural awareness and sensitivity in religious issues. And so, to a certain extent, I think that same line of logic can also be extended to, for example, our diplomatic corps, and certainly many corporations. We also saw briefs from the field of medicine, from science and research, have all written in support of race-conscious admissions, along the same sort of pipeline issues as their companies and organizations. And they argue that their work benefits from a highly educated, diverse workforce. But what was interesting, was that there wasn't much discussion about Asian Americans. It was only brought up sort of a handful of times, despite the fact that certainly that's sort of the origin story of the sets of lawsuits. And perhaps—to me perhaps this is simply an indication that the case was really never about Asian Americans from the beginning. And certainly the finding from the district court shows that Asian Americans are not discriminated in this process at Harvard. And so we will all sort of see how the Court rules next year, if they uphold precedent or not, and if they do not, how narrow or how broad they will go. Justice Barrett did have an interesting question in the UNC part of the case about affinity groups and affinity housing on campus. So, for example, my undergraduate alma mater, UC Berkeley, has this for several groups. They have affinity housing for Asian Americans, African Americans, Native Americans, women in STEM, the LGBTQ+ community, Latinx students, among many, many others, actually. So I think a possible area of concern is if they go broad, will we see a ban on these types of race-based practices on campus? Would that impact sort of thinking about recruitment efforts? So these so-called race-neutral approaches, sort of recruitment and outreach services for particular communities. Or would that impact something like HBCUs and tribal colleges, HSIs and AANAPISIs, or other MSIs? How does that all fit in, right? I think that line of questioning sort of sparked a bit of concern from folks and my colleagues. But I think, though, in conversation, we don't think the Court has really any appetite to go that far. And I'm certainly inclined to agree. But end of the day, that line of questioning was rather curious. And so, with that, I thank you for letting me share some of my thinking and about what's going on. And I would really love to be able to engage in conversation with all of you. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Thank you so much. And we'd love to hear now from you all questions and comments, and if you could share how things are happening on your campuses. Please raise—click on the raised-hand icon on your screen to ask a question. If you're on an iPad or tablet, you can click the More button to access the raised-hand feature. I'll call on you, and then accept the unmute prompt, state your name and affiliation, followed by your question. You can also submit a written question in the Q&A box or vote for questions that have been written there. And if you do write your question, it would be great if you could write who you are. I'm going to go first to a raised hand, Morton Holbrook. And there you go. Q: I'm there, yeah. Morton Holbrook from Kentucky Wesleyan College in Kentucky. Thanks, Professor Nguyen. Sort of a two-part question here. One is, how do you reconcile apparent public support for affirmative action with the number of states, I think ten or twelve states, that have banned affirmative action? Are their legislators just out of touch with their people, or what? And the second part is, a recent article in the Washington Post about UC Berkeley's experience, where the number of African American students simply plummeted down to about 3 percent, and at the same time that campus is still very diverse in other respects. Have you made a study of all the states that have banned affirmative action? Have they all had that same result with regard to African Americans? Or where does that stand? Thank you. NGUYEN: Thank you. Thank you for the really excellent question. I think it's about—I think you're right—around nine, ten or so states that have banned affirmative action. You know, I'll be completely honest with you. I'm really just familiar with the bans that were instituted both in California and in Michigan, and those were through state referendums, right, and not necessarily legislature. So in this case, this is the people voting for it. And so I think that's a really tough nut to crack about how do you reconcile these bans at the state level versus sort of what we see at the national level. And so I think this is sort of the big challenge that advocates for racial equity are facing in places like California. They actually tried to repeal this in California recently, in the last decade. And again, that failed. And so I think part of the issue here is there's a whole lot of misinformation out there. I think that's one key issue. I sort of said in my opening remarks there that, at least in some of the popular media pieces today about these cases, the way Asian Americans are sort of understood and written about is really not aligned with a lot of the rich empirical research out there that shows quite the contrary, as well as sort of historical research that shows quite the contrary. And so I think there's a lot of public opinion being formulated as well as, again, just sort of misinformation about the topic that might be leading folks to think one way or another. To your second question about UC Berkeley, my alma mater, you're right. After that Prop 209 ban, you saw a huge decline in undergraduate enrollment, specifically of African American students. And so Berkeley has been trying every which way to figure out a race—a so-called race-neutral approach in order to increase those numbers. And I think they are trying to—they are really trying to figure it out. And I think that's why UC Berkeley, UCLA, other institutions submitted amicus briefs in support of Harvard, in support of UNC, because they know that there are not a lot—when you can't use race, that's a result that you end up with. And that's because there are just not good proxy variables for race. SES or economic status is often talked about a lot. That again isn't a good variable. Geography can—to a certain extent can be used. All these can sort of certainly be used in some combination. But again, they do not serve well as proxy variables. And I think that's why we see those numbers at Berkeley. And I think that's why Berkeley was so invested in this case and why all those campus leaders submitted amicus briefs in support of Harvard and UNC. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next written question or first written question from Darko Spasevski, who's at the University of Skopje, North Macedonia: Do you think that in order to have successful affirmative actions in the higher education this process should be followed by affirmative actions in the workplace? Are the benefits—if the affirmative actions are only promoted at the level of higher education but are not at the same time continuing at the workplace? I guess it would be the opposite. Is it—you know, basically, should affirmative action be promoted in the workplace as well— NGUYEN: Yeah, I think— FASKIANOS: —once you get past the higher education? NGUYEN: Got it. Yeah, I think I understand that question. Actually, this was something that came up during this recent Supreme Court case. Again, the solicitor general was talking about specifically the briefs from the retired generals and admirals, as well as from various executives and corporations, talking about how affirmative action is so important at the university level because then it helps build a pipeline to recruit folks to work at those organizations or serve in the military, as well as that it trains all students, right, and lets them access and achieve the benefits of diversity and use that in their future employment, which research from areas of management show that that increases work productivity. It increases their bottom line, et cetera, et cetera. And so actually, in that argument, the—I think it was Justice Alito that asked, are you now arguing for this in the private sector, in corporations? And the solicitor general quickly said no, no. The context of this lawsuit is specifically or the position of the United States is specifically just focused here on higher education. And I think that certainly is relevant for this conversation today, as well as sort of my own area of expertise. But I think my colleagues in the areas of management and a lot of that work shows, I think, similar types of results that, when you have diverse workforces, when you have folks who can reap the benefits of diversity interactions, interracial interactions, then there are certainly a lot of benefits that come from that, in addition to creativity, work efficiency, so many things. And so, again, I'm not here to sort of put a position down regarding affirmative action in professional settings, only because that's not my area of expertise. But certainly other areas of research have pointed in similar directions as what's sort of shown in the higher-education literature. FASKIANOS: (Off mic) Renteln? And let's see if you can unmute yourself. If you click on the unmute prompt, you should be able to ask your question. Not working? Maybe not. OK, so I will read it. So— Q: Is it working now? FASKIANOS: It is, Alison. Go ahead. Q: Thank you. I'm sorry. It's just usually it shows me when I'm teaching. Thank you for a really interesting, incisive analysis; really enjoyed it. I wanted to ask about whether it's realistic to be able to implement policies that are, quote, race-neutral, unquote, given that people's surnames convey sometimes identities, ethnic and religious identities, and also activities that people participated in in professional associations. And when people have references or letters of recommendation, information about background comes out. So I'm wondering if you think that this debate really reflects a kind of polarization, a kind of symbolitics, and whether, while some worry about the consequences of the Supreme Court's decisions, this is really something that's more symbolic than something that could actually be implemented if the universities continue to be committed to affirmative action. NGUYEN: Really great question. Thank you so much for asking it. This was actually a big chunk of the conversation during oral arguments for both at UNC and both at Harvard, right. The justices were asking, so how do you—if you don't—and this was sort of the whole part about when they were talking about checking the box, checking sort of your racial category during the application process. And so they asked, if you get rid of that, what happens when students write about their experiences in their personal statements or, as you said, recommenders in their letters in about that? And so this was where it got really, really—I think the lawyers had a really hard time disentangling it, because for people of color, certainly a lot of their experiences, their racialized experiences, are inextricably linked to their race and their identity. And so removing that is, at an operationalized level, pretty hard to do and pretty impossible, right. So they actually had some interesting examples, like one—and so they're asking hypotheticals. Both lawyers—both the justices on all the various spectrum of the Court were asking sort of pointed questions. Where I think one justice asked, so can you talk about—can you talk about your family's experiences, particularly if your ancestors were slaves in the United States? And so the lawyers—this is the lawyer for SFFA saying that would not—we cannot use that. They cannot be used in admissions, because that is linked to their race. But can you—so another justice asked, can you talk about if, you know, your family immigrated to the United States? Can you—how do you talk about that? Can you talk about that? And the lawyers said, well, that would be permissible then, because that doesn't necessarily have to be tied to a racial group or a racial category. So again, it's very—I think what they were trying to tease out was how do you—what do you actually—what would actually be the way to restrict that, right? And so I guess, depending on how the justices decide this case, my assumption is or my hope is, depending on whatever way they go, they're going to—they will, one way or another, define or sort of place limits if they do end up removing the use of race. But I completely agree with you. Operationally, that's not an easy thing to do, right? And when do you decide what fits and what doesn't fit? And that will be the—that will be a big, big struggle I think universities will face if the courts ban the use of race in college admissions. FASKIANOS: Let me just add that Alison Dundes Renteln is a professor of political science at the University of Southern California. So I'm going to go to the next written question, from Clemente Abrokwaa at Penn State University: Do you think affirmative action should be redefined to reflect current social-demographic groups and needs? NGUYEN: Oh, that's such a fun question, and particularly for someone who studies race and racial formation in the United States. And so I—you know, this is—this is an interesting one. I think—I think sort of the way we think about—at least folks in my profession think about race versus sort of the way—the way it's currently accounted for in—by state-based classifications/definitions, those tend to be a little bit behind, right? That's normal and natural. But I think what we've seen in the United States over time is race has—or, racial classifications and categories have changed over time and continue to evolve, right? The Census—the Census Bureau has an advisory group to help them think through this when they collect this data. And so—and so I'll be honest with you, I don't have a good answer for you, actually. But I think—I think that certainly, given the fact that racial categories do shift and change over time and the meaning ascribed to them, we certainly need to take a—if we continue using approaches for—race- or ethnic-based approaches in college admissions, that's something that absolutely needs to be considered, right? But at the same time, it also means, as we think about sort of the future and what does that look like—and maybe, for example, here we're talking about folks who are—who identify as mixed race. But at the same time, we need to look historically, too, right? So we don't want to—the historical definitions and the way people would self-identify historically. And so I think—I think, certainly, the answer, then, would be—would be both, right? But what a fun question. Thanks for that question. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the moderator prerogative here and ask you about: How does affirmative action in higher education in the United States relate to, you know, relations abroad? NGUYEN: Yeah. Well— FASKIANOS: Have you looked at that connection? NGUYEN: Sure. I think—I think that—I think that's really, really interesting. So something that we wrote in our amicus brief particularly regarding—it was sort of in response to SFFA's brief and their claim, which was about sort of why Asian Americans here were so exceptional in their—in their academic achievements. I think that's a—tends to be a big stereotype, model minority stereotype. That is how Asian Americans are racialized. So one thing that we sort of wrote in our brief was this actually is really connected to a certain extent, right—for some Asian American groups in the United States, that's linked to U.S. foreign policy and U.S. immigration policy about who from Asia is allowed to immigrate to the United States, what their sort of educational background and requirements are. And so I think when we think about the arguments being made in this lawsuit and the way Asian Americans are discussed, certainly one key aspect there is certainly connected to historic U.S. foreign policy, particularly around—as well as immigration policy, particularly around the 1965 Immigration Act. So certainly they are connected and they're linked. And something that we—that I wish more people could—more people would read our brief, I guess, and get a good understanding of, sort of to add to the complexity of this lawsuit. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to go back to Morton Holbrook. Q: Yes. Still here at Kentucky Wesleyan College. Speaking of amicus briefs, what do you think of the Catholic college brief from Georgetown University? Here we have a Court that's been very partial towards religious beliefs, and they're arguing that their religious beliefs requires them to seek diversity in college admissions. How do you think they'll fare in that argument? NGUYEN: Yeah. This was also brought up in—during oral arguments. I can't remember if it was during the UNC part or the Harvard part. And I'll be completely honest with you, I haven't read that brief yet. There's just so many and I wasn't able to read them all. But this was a really interesting—really interesting point that was sort of raised in the courts. And I don't—I don't—I don't have a good answer for you, to be completely honest. I'm not sure how they're going to, particularly given that these—that this Court seems to be very much in favor of religious liberty, right, how they would account for that amicus brief from the Catholic institutions. And so that will be an interesting one to watch and to see—to see how it's framed, and certainly it would be interesting if they played an outsized role in the justices' decision-making here. But great question. Great point to raise and something I'll add to my reading list for this weekend. FASKIANOS: So Alison Renteln came back with a question following on mine: Why are numerical quotas acceptable in other countries like India but not in the United States? NGUYEN: Yeah. Great, great question there. You know, also in other places like in Brazil. And so we, in fact, used to use numerical quotas before the Bakke decision. It was the Bakke decision, University of California v. Bakke, that eliminated the use of racial quotas, also eliminated the use of what I said earlier about sort of the rationales for why we can practice race-conscious admissions, which was it cannot be used to address historic racism or ongoing racism. In fact, the only rationale for why we can use affirmative action today as a—as a factor of many factors, is in order to—for universities to build campus environments—diverse campus environments of which there are benefits to diversity, the educational benefits of diversity that flows for all students. And so, yeah, it was the—it was the Supreme Court in the late 1970s that restricted the use of quotas among many other—many other rationales for the practice of race-conscious admissions. Thank you for that question. FASKIANOS: Great. And I'm going to go to next to raised hand from Emily Drew. Q: Great. Thank you. I'm listening in from Oregon, where I'm a sociologist. Thank you for all of these smart comments. My question is a little bit thinking out loud. What do you think about—it feels like there are some perils and dangers, but I'm hoping you'll reframe that for me, of some racialized groups like indigenous people saying, well, we're not a race anyway—we're tribes, we're nations—so that they're not subject to the ban on race-conscious practices, which, it's true, they're a tribe. They're also a racialized group. And so I'm struggling with groups kind of finding a political way around the ban or the potential ban that's coming, but then where does that leave us in terms of, you know, each group, like, take care of your own kind of thing? Can you just react a little bit to that? NGUYEN: Yeah. Thanks for that really wonderful question. Fascinating point about, yeah, the way to say: We're not a racial group. We're sovereign nations or sovereign tribes. I think what we're going to see, depending on how the courts go, are folks trying—schools potentially trying a whole host of different approaches to increase diversity on their campuses if they're not allowed to use some of these racial categories like they've been doing already, in a holistic approach. And so, yeah, that might be a fascinating way for indigenous communities to advance forward. I will say, though, there was one point, again, in the—during oral arguments where they started talking about sort of generational connections to racial categories. And so they're saying if it's my grandparents' grandparents' grandparents, right, so sort of talking almost about, like—at least the way I interpreted it, as sort of thinking about connecting one to a race via blood quantum. And so when does that—when does that expire, right? And so is it—is it—if you're one-sixteenth Native American, is that—does that count? So there was a short line of questioning about that, and I think the—I think the lawyer tried to draw a line in the sand about, like, at what point do you not go—what point does it count and when does it not count. And I think that's actually a bit of a misstep, primarily because that should be determined by the sovereign nation, by the tribe, about who gets to identify as that—as a member of that nation or that tribe and how they—I think—you know, I think, talking to indigenous scholars, they would say it's about how you engage in and how you live in it, rather than—rather than if it's just a percentage. So, again, those will be the tensions, I think, that will—that already exist, I should say, regardless of the Court decision. But a fascinating point about states sort of exercising indigenous law there to see if that would be a way to counter that. Certainly, I should—I should have said at the top of this I'm not trained as a lawyer. And so I have no idea how that would be sort of litigated out, but certainly I imagine all different entities will find ways to move through this without—in various legal fashions. And I was talking to a colleague earlier today about this and he said something about at the end of the day this might be something that, if Congress decided to take up, they may—this would be an opportunity for Congress to take up, to maybe develop a narrow path for institutions. But certainly it's—the courts seem to be the favored way for us to talk about affirmative action. FASKIANOS: There's a written question from John Francis, who is a research professor of political science at the University of Utah: If the Court were to strike down affirmative action, would state universities give much more attention to geographic recruitment within their respective states and encourage private foundations to raise scholarship funds to support students of color who live in those areas? NGUYEN: Great, great question there. And I think that would be one of many things that universities are doing. We're seeing schools where the states have banned affirmative action do things like this, in Michigan and certainly in California. But to a certain extent, it actually doesn't work—I guess in California's context—that well. I think, if I'm not mistaken, the head of admissions for UC Berkeley said in one of many panels—he's wonderful, by the way—on one of many panels, like, that doesn't work very well in the California context because only so many schools have sort of that large concentration of African American students and for them to sort of go there and recruit out of that. So it's not a—the sort of geographic distribution is not so easy and clean cut as—I think as one would normally perceive. And so it actually develops a big, big challenge for state institutions, particularly state flagship institutions, in particular geographic contexts. Now, I don't know if that's the case, say, in other parts of the country. But certainly within the UC system, that seems to be a prevailing argument. And I think more than ever now, everyone has been looking to the UC system for insight on what they—on how to approach this if the courts decide next year to ban the use of race. I should also admit that—or, not admit, but proudly declare that I'm a product of the UC system. All of my postsecondary education is from those schools. And so I know that this has been a constant and ongoing conversation within the UC system, and I imagine that will be the case for schools both public and private across the country. But I think part of that calculation then requires institutions to think about not just from private donors, but really from state legislatures as well as the institutions themselves have to really think about how they want to dedicate resources to achieving diversity if they don't—if they're unable to use race. I think a tremendous amount of resources. So, to a certain extent, it's going to make institutions put their money where their mouth is. And so we'll see if that—this will all be interesting areas to investigate, depending on how the courts decide come next year. FASKIANOS: There's a raised hand or there was a raised hand from Jeff Goldsmith. I don't know if you still have a question. Q: Yeah. So I've been trying to figure out exactly how I might want to pose this question, but I was struck by—sorry, this is Jeff Goldsmith from Columbia University. I was struck by the line of questioning that you mentioned from Justice Barrett about affinity housing and your thoughts about how narrow or far-reaching a decision striking down affirmative action might be. And I guess it seems like there is the potential for at least some gray area. And you know, we run things like summer research programs that are intended to bolster diversity. There are in some cases—you just sort of mentioned the scholarship opportunities focused on increasing the number of students from underrepresented backgrounds. And I guess I'm just sort of curious if you have any speculation about how narrow or far-reaching a decision might be. NGUYEN: Thanks for that question. Yeah. So I think this was—we—prior to the—to oral arguments, people had sort of talked about this a little bit. Would this be consequential? And I—in fact, the day before—the day before oral arguments, I was on a different panel and I sort of brought this up. And actually, a federal judge in the audience came up to me afterwards and said, you know, I don't think the Court's got a lot of appetite for that. And I said, hey, I completely agree with you, but certainly, you know, we've—in recent times we've seen the Court do more interesting things, I guess, if you'll—if I can use a euphemism. And so—and so, it almost feels like everything's on the table, right? But I think, generally speaking, I'm inclined to agree that if the courts strike down race-conscious admissions, they will do it in a very narrow and highly-tailored way. That was my feeling going in. That was my feeling on October 30, right? Then, on Halloween—October 31—while listening to the—to the oral arguments, you had that very short exchange between Justice Barrett, specifically during the UNC case, ask about affinity groups and affinity housing, and it felt like it sort of came out of left field. And not—and so I think that raised some curiosity for all of us about what—about why that was a line of questioning. But nonetheless, I think at least my—I've never been a gambling person, but if I were I would say that if they do strike it down that I think the justices wholesale don't—I don't think they would have a large appetite to do something so broad and sweeping like that. At least that's my hope, if that's the direction we're moving in. But I guess that's why I said earlier that we're sort of all on pins and needles about that. And if that is struck down, then I think that's got a lot of consequences for scholarships, recruitment programs, summer bridge programs, potentially minority-serving institutions, and all of the above. So, yeah, I—again, it seems like that's a big reshaping of postsecondary education, not just in admissions but sort of the way they operate overall. And I don't know if that would happen so quickly overnight like that. But that, at least, is my hope. FASKIANOS: (Off mic.) There you go. Q: (Laughs.) Thank you so much for your talk. Clemente Abrokwaa from Penn State University. And my question is, right now there is a push for diversity, equity, and inclusion in many areas. How is that different from affirmative action? NGUYEN: Well, great question. And actually, that's a really difficult one for me to answer only because I think if we were to go and ask ten people on the street what did we mean by diversity, equity, and inclusion, everyone would give you sort of a very different and potentially narrow or a very broad definition of what it means, right? But I think with respect to affirmative action, particularly in a higher-education context, it is specifically about college admissions, specifically about admissions and how do you review college admissions. And in this case here, there is a very narrow way in which it can—it can be used for race—in this case for race, that it's got to be narrowly tailored, that it can only be a factor among a factor in a broad holistic approach, that you can't use quotas, that it can't be based on rectifying previous or historical racism, and that the only utility for it is that it is used to create learning environments where there are educational benefits that flow from diversity and the interactions of diversity. Versus, I think, broader conversations about DEI, while of course centered on admissions, right, which is sort of one of many dimensions in which you achieve DEI, right? We like to think that—and I'm going to be sort of citing a scholar, Sylvia Hurtado, out of UCLA, who argues that, admissions help contribute to one dimension, which is the composition of a university, the sort of just overall demographics and numbers of that university. But there are many other dimensions that are important in order to create learning environments in which we can achieve DEI-related issues. That means that we have to look at the institution and the way it's acted historically and contemporarily. We have to look at behavioral interactions between people on a university. There are psychological dimensions, among many others. And so that's how I think about it. I think that's how at least my area of scholarship and in our academic discipline we think about it and for folks who study education think about it. And so hopefully that answers your question. And, yeah, hopefully that answers your question. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next question from Alison Renteln: What policies appear to be the best practices to increase diversity at universities, including disability? And what are the best practices from other countries? NGUYEN: Oh, wow, that's a really good question. So we—you know, I think—I think a lot of other countries use quotas. Brazil might be sort of the example that most folks think about when they think about the way affirmative action's practiced abroad. And certainly that's not something that we can do here in the United States. So that's—that—really, really important consideration. Sort of other practices that I think that are—that are not sort of the ones that are narrowly tailored by the courts are what I said earlier about sort of what the UC system has to really do and has to really grapple with, right, are using every sort of—everything that they can think of under the sun to go out and try to do outreach and recruit and build those pipelines throughout the entire education system. There's been some work by some wonderful folks in our field—Dominique Baker, Mike Bastedo—who looked at even sort of just a random sampling, if you were able to do a lottery system, and that has actually found that that doesn't actually increase diversity either, and so—racial diversity either. And so I think that's—so, again, this all points to how crucial affirmative action is in being able to use race in order to achieve compositional diversity on a college campus, and that other proxy variables just don't even come close to being able to help estimate that. And so, yeah, that's—I should also note that really, we're only talking about a dozen or so schools. Oh, I'm sorry, more than a dozen, but a handful of schools that this is really a big issue for. Most schools in the United States don't necessarily—are not at this level of selectivity where it becomes a big issue of concern for the national public. Nearly half of all of our college-going students are at community college, which tend to be open-access institutions. And so something also to keep in mind when we talk about affirmative action. FASKIANOS: Thanks. We only have a few minutes left. Can you talk a little bit more about the work of NYU's Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools? NGUYEN: Yeah. So I'm a faculty affiliate there, and maybe I'll preface by saying I'm new to NYU. I just came here from the University of Denver, and so I'm still learning about every wonderful thing that Metro Center is doing. It's led by a wonderful faculty member here named Fabienne Doucet and really focused on sort of a handful of pillars—certainly research on education, but also a real big tie for communities. So real direct engagement with schools, school systems in order to advance justice in those schools. And so they have a lot of contracts with school districts and public entities, as well as nonprofit groups that come in and work as an incubator there on a host of issues. And so I think the work there is really exciting and really interesting. It tends to be—and I should say also very expansive. So the whole sort of K-12 system, as well as postsecondary. And I think that's the role that I'm looking to play there, is to help contribute to and expand their work in the postsecondary education space. FASKIANOS: Great. And maybe a few words about your other—you have many, many hats. NGUYEN: Oh. (Laughs.) FASKIANOS: NYU's Institute for Human Development and Social Change. NGUYEN: Yeah. They do some really wonderful, interesting work. And it's really, actually, a center and a space for faculty to come in and run a lot of their research projects, including my own, which is the MSI Data Project, where we are looking at all the various different types of minority-serving institutions in the United States, how they change over time, and how the federal government thinks about them and accounts for them, as well as how do the schools themselves think about them, all with the goal here in order to work with students of colors and give them access and opportunity. I should say, depending on how you count them, MSIs enroll a huge and significant proportion of all students of color, almost half, in the country, despite making up such a small percentage, about 20 percent, of all college and universities. And so this is—certainly when we talk about affirmative action, we—I think a lot of folks center it around racial justice or social justice. I think sort of the other side of the same coin here are schools like minority-serving institutions which enroll and provide access to and graduate a really significant proportion and number of students of color and certainly an area that we need to bring a lot more attention to when we talk about issues of race and education. FASKIANOS: OK, I'm going to take one—try to sneak in one last question from John Francis, who's raised his hand. You get the last one, John. Q: OK, can you hear me? FASKIANOS: We can. Q: Oh, that's great. So my question is—has a certain irony to it, but there's been a great deal of discussion of late that men are not succeeding in college, but that women are, and that certainly should be encouraged, but also there should be ways to find perhaps even changing when people start out in elementary school how that may be shifted to help men later on. And in this discussion, when we're looking at that issue and it's gaining some latitude, some strength, should we think about that as a possible consideration that universities should have greater latitude in making decisions to reflect the current set of demographic issues, be it race or gender or others? Has this argument come to play any kind of role? NGUYEN: Great question and a good last one, and if I can be completely honest, not an area that I'm—gender-based issues are not an area that I've done a whole lot of work in, if really any work, but I will attempt to answer your question as best as I can here, which is, I think—and sort of connected to sort of the larger conversation and question that we had that someone posed earlier about sort of the complexity and changing nature of racial and ethnic categories and what does that mean, and how do universities address that? And I think this is again where it requires universities to have some flexibility and nimbleness and autonomy to be able to address a lot of these issues, including what you're talking about, John, depending on the context and the times in which we are in. You know, certainly one big area also connected to—for men in postsecondary education is sort of the huge gap we see for men of color from particular groups, and really we see foundations, we see the Obama administration really play—invest in this work. So, John, from what it sounds like, it sounds like I agree with you here about—that universities need flexibility and autonomy to be able to address these issues. Now, that may—at the same time, we don't want to dismiss the fact that the experiences of women in postsecondary education—while certainly we see numbers increasing in enrollment in a lot of aspects, in certain disciplines we see a sharp decline; we see—in STEM and engineering fields, in the way those disciplines may be organized to sort of push out women. And so I think, again, this is why it requires some nimbleness and some autonomy from the universities to be able to design approaches to support students of different types of diversity on their campuses, in particular areas, disciplines, and majors. And so I think that's the—I think that's the challenge, is that we need to be a lot more intentional and think more precisely and run our analyses in ways that make sense for particular intersectional groups on campus and in the areas of which they're studying. So yeah, I think that's the—one of the big challenges that universities are facing today and certainly depending on how the courts rule, we'll see if that ends up restricting autonomy and removing tools or allowing those tools to remain for various types of targeted interventions for various minoritized groups. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Well, Mike Nguyen, thank you very much for this terrific hour and to all of you for your questions and comments. This is really insightful and we appreciate it. Welcome to New York, Mike, your first New York—holidays in New York. So we will be resuming the series in January and we will be sending out also the lineup for our winter/spring semester of the Academic Webinar series, which is really designed for students, later this month. We do wish you all luck with administering finals this week and grading them and all those papers; I don't envy you all. We have different deadlines under—at the Council that we're working on right now, so it will be a busy month, but we hope that everybody enjoys the holidays. We will resume in January, in the new year, and I encourage you all to follow us at @CFR_Academic on Twitter. Visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Again, thanks, Mike, for this, and to all of you. NGUYEN: Thank you so much for having me. Really an honor. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Take care, everybody. (END)

On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina).In perhaps the most anticipated case of this term, the court considers a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.Tune in to hear our experts break down the oral argument.Featuring:Prof. Amanda Shanor, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The Wharton SchoolDevon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal OpportunityModerator: Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice

This week on SA Voices From the Field we interviewed Art Coleman about Race Based Admissions and where we are as a country when it comes to this ever-changing landscape.  Art Coleman is a Managing Partner and co-founder of EducationCounsel LLC.  He provides policy, strategic, and legal counseling services to national non-profit organizations, postsecondary institutions, school districts and state agencies throughout the country, where he addresses issues associated with: student access, diversity, inclusion, expression, and success; faculty diversity, inclusion and expression; and institutional quality, accountability and accreditation. Mr. Coleman previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, where, in the 1990s, he led the Department's development of the Department's Title VI policy on race-conscious financial aid, as well as OCR's first comprehensive Title IX sexual harassment policy guidance.       Mr. Coleman was instrumental in the establishment of the College Board's Access and Diversity Collaborative (ADC) in 2004, which he has helped lead since its inception. He was also a member of a thought leadership panel that helped inform the development of the January 2022 report, Toward a More Equitable Future for Postsecondary Access, published by NACAC and NASFAA.  With a focus on issues of diversity and higher education admissions, he has also authored amicus briefs in: Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) & Gratz v. Bollinger (2003); Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (I and II, 2013 and 2016); and in the 2022 SFFA v. Harvard/UNC cases.  His advocacy work also includes the development of a successful federal amicus strategy and numerous federal appellate briefs on behalf of transgender students throughout the United States. Mr. Coleman is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California's Rossier School of Education, where he teaches a masters level course on enrollment management law and policy.  In 2022, he received the Rossier School's Adjunct Faculty Teaching Award, with the recognition that as “one of the nation's leading legal voices supporting access, diversity and inclusion,” he “does a masterful job at simplifying complex concepts and highlighting the complexities of seemingly simple concepts.” He has testified before the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.  He is a current Executive Committee member of the Board of Directors of the National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (NC-SARA); and he is a past member of the Board of Directors of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network); the Lab School of Washington, which serves students with learning differences; and a past chairman of the Board of Directors of the Institute for Higher Education Policy. A former litigator, Mr. Coleman is a 1984 honors graduate of Duke University School of Law and a 1981 Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Virginia.  Art Coleman shared a few links to examples of things he mentioned in the podcast: https://educationcounsel.com/?publication=engaging-campus-stakeholders-on-enrollment-issues-associated-with-student-diversity-a-communications-primer https://professionals.collegeboard.org/pdf/playbook-understanding-race-neutral-strategies.pdf Please subscribe to SA Voices from the Field on your favorite podcasting device and share the podcast with other student affairs colleagues!

Nia and Aughie discuss the recent Supreme Court hearings involving two cases from the Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard (one case) and SFFA versus UNC (second case). The universities in these cases, heard together, argued that race may be considered in admissions to increase diversity of the student body. The SFFA argued that preference granted to one race for admissions by necessity brings inequity for other races.

Breakdown: The Brothas return this Sunday with the recent layoffs in the tech industry and bipolar weather fresh on their minds. They spend sometime discussing the Supreme Court Case of SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC and how they will impact Black and minority collegiate students. Plug A Plug: Jazzy's Cabaret (@jazzyscabaret). Pass The Aux: Mike: Lil Baby - "Waterfall Flow", Corey: Dave East - "Gangstas", Stephen: Nyck Caution - "COVER YOUR WOUNDS".

The questions presented in the SFFA and EWS take different constitutional and legal forms but are grounded in similar political concerns.----more----Read the article here: https://theprint.in/opinion/ews-judgment-fundamental-shift-from-caste-it-reshapes-affirmative-action-as-anti-poverty/1202916/

GUEST OVERVIEW: Kenny Xu is the author of “An Inconvenient Minority: The Attack on Asian American Excellence and the Fight for Meritocracy”. He is also the President of Color Us United, an organization that advocates for a color-blind society. Expert on the SFFA vs Harvard case now before the Supreme Court. Kenny Xu is the lead insider on the Harvard case and a commentary writer for The Federalist, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Signal, and Quillette. Xu has spoken on the consequences of the Harvard case and its identity politics ideology in front of groups as diverse as the nationally renowned Pacific Legal Foundation to the Boston Rally for Education Rights to the all-Black Connecticut Parents Union. His commentary has propelled him to interviews with NPR and features in the New York Times Magazine. He lives in Washington, DC. GUEST WEBSITE: https://colorusunited.org/ 

(This is part 1 of a 2-part episode) Monday's Supreme Court oral arguments for the affirmative action cases involving Harvard and UNC presented no surprises, almost ensuring a victory for the SFFA's Asian American plaintiffs. But the consequences of this victory go far beyond Asian students and college admissions: this could be a twin of the Dobbs case overturning Roe v. Wade and resetting the foundations of Constitutional interpretation. Eliza, Jess, and Teen try to dive into the deeper meaning behind this court case. REFERENCED RESOURCES: SCOTUS transcripts: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2022 AEI televised debate (1985): https://youtu.be/B_HKC50unjc Education After Affirmative Action (Jeannie Suk Gersen): https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/11/07/education-after-affirmative-action Join us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/planamag Check out the new Plan A merchandise shop: planamag.com/shop/ EFPA Theme: "Escape From Plan A" by Ciel (@aerialist)

On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. In perhaps the most anticipated case of this term, the court considers a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. […]

On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College.In perhaps the most anticipated case of this term, the court considers a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Our experts broke down the oral argument on the same day, October 31, 2022. Featuring:Prof. Amanda Shanor, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The Wharton SchoolDevon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal OpportunityModerator: Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice

After a quick statement on the NBA All-Star Reserves, we start the episode (2:13) by talking about what changes could and should be made to the NFL Pro Bowl, then get into a very wide-ranging conversation about Zion Williamson, Ja Morant, Luka Doncic, and Tua Tagovailoa (16:38) before going into a break where we talk about other NBA stories (34:57). After the break, we discuss the Brian Flores lawsuit against the Broncos, Giants, Dolphins and the NFL (38:45) that also includes discussion about pending Supreme Court cases SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC. We then talk a bit about the AFC and NFC Championships (52:23), trade destinations for some quarterbacks this offseason (1:04:25), and quick Super Bowl picks that we'll do again (1:12:41). NFL Playoff Brackets, NBA Game Picks Follow us on Twitter, Instagram and TikTok @flagsandfouls Follow us on Twitter: @nathan_boles3, @The_Real_STD_02, @jose_d92, @Loya172 Follow us on Colorcast (may need app): @nathanboles3 ===================== 2022 Pro Bowl: Complete AFC roster revealed (NFL.com) 2022 Pro Bowl: Complete NFC roster revealed (NFL.com) Disney Channel Games 2006 (The Disney Wiki) Disney Channel Games 2007 (The Disney Wiki) Disney Channel Games 2008 (The Disney Wiki) Disney Channel Games 2006 YouTube Playlist from the2000svault Disney Channel Games 2007 YouTube Playlist from the2000svault Disney Channel Games 2008 YouTube Playlist from demi1855, videos by TheLegendkiller and privatesender123 Brian Flores' NFL lawsuit: Can he prove systemic racism? What we know about claims of 'sham interviews' and incentivizing tanking, plus what's next (ESPN) Supreme Court to hear Harvard and UNC affirmative action case (The Daily Free Press) What We Learned From the N.F.L.'s Conference Championships (The New York Times) ================= Theme and End Music: "Wake Up - Instrumental" by Wataboi from Pixabay Middle Music: "Stairway" by Patrick Patrikios from YouTube Audio Library Whistle sound effect from FreeSFX: freesfx.co.uk

After a quick statement on the NBA All-Star Reserves, we start the episode (2:13) by talking about what changes could and should be made to the NFL Pro Bowl, then get into a very wide-ranging conversation about Zion Williamson, Ja Morant, Luka Doncic, and Tua Tagovailoa (16:38) before going into a break where we talk about other NBA stories (34:57). After the break, we discuss the Brian Flores lawsuit against the Broncos, Giants, Dolphins and the NFL (38:45) that also includes discussion about pending Supreme Court cases SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC. We then talk a bit about the AFC and NFC Championships (52:23), trade destinations for some quarterbacks this offseason (1:04:25), and quick Super Bowl picks that we'll do again (1:12:41). NFL Playoff Brackets, NBA Game Picks Follow us on Twitter, Instagram and TikTok @flagsandfouls Follow us on Twitter: @nathan_boles3, @The_Real_STD_02, @jose_d92, @Loya172 Follow us on Colorcast (may need app): @nathanboles3 ===================== 2022 Pro Bowl: Complete AFC roster revealed (NFL.com) 2022 Pro Bowl: Complete NFC roster revealed (NFL.com) Disney Channel Games 2006 (The Disney Wiki) Disney Channel Games 2007 (The Disney Wiki) Disney Channel Games 2008 (The Disney Wiki) Disney Channel Games 2006 YouTube Playlist from the2000svault Disney Channel Games 2007 YouTube Playlist from the2000svault Disney Channel Games 2008 YouTube Playlist from demi1855, videos by TheLegendkiller and privatesender123 Brian Flores' NFL lawsuit: Can he prove systemic racism? What we know about claims of 'sham interviews' and incentivizing tanking, plus what's next (ESPN) Supreme Court to hear Harvard and UNC affirmative action case (The Daily Free Press) What We Learned From the N.F.L.'s Conference Championships (The New York Times) ================= Theme and End Music: "Wake Up - Instrumental" by Wataboi from Pixabay Middle Music: "Stairway" by Patrick Patrikios from YouTube Audio Library Whistle sound effect from FreeSFX: freesfx.co.uk

In this episode, Kenny sits down with Peter Arcidiacono. Peter is an economist at Duke University, and was the SFFA's lead analyst in their lawsuit against Harvard. They discuss Peter's findings with regard to Harvard's admissions discrimination against Asian Americans, and they dive deep into the explanations and results of this information.   Follow Kenny: https://twitter.com/kennymxu https://www.instagram.com/kennymxu/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC03wu_Win8YoIZ3PLmP8v-g https://www.facebook.com/kennymxu

In Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, petitioning Asian-American students argued that Harvard’s undergraduate admissions policies actively discriminated against them on the basis of race in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit disagreed, triggering SFFA’s pending petition to the Supreme Court for certiorari. If the Court accepts cert, the case will present it with the chance to address the legality of race-based admissions policies for the fifth time in as many decades. Should and will the Court take the case? Is this an opportunity for a long-overdue correction of judicial error or a project doomed to fail? And what exactly does the trove of information from the record below mean for the Court’s decision, for admissions departments elsewhere, and for applicants? Join us for a discussion of the case by, on the one hand, one-time Dean of Admissions at the University of Chicago Law School Anna Ivey, a renowned school-application consultant, and, on the other, Ashcroft Law Firm LLC partner Cory Liu, a former Assistant General Counsel to Texas Governor Greg Abbott and former Editor in Chief of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Featuring:-- Anna Ivey, Founder, Anna Ivey Consulting -- Cory Liu, Partner, Ashcroft Law Firm -- Moderator: Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project

Audrey Anderson from Bass Berry & Sims joins the show to talk about whether or not colleges will be able to continue using race as a factor for admissions. Tune in and find out. Special thanks to our sponsor Nota. Sources: SCOTUS Blog by Andrew Hamm ‘Affirmative action at Harvard, border searches and pedestrian safety' SCOTUS Blog ‘Students for Fair Admission Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College' SFFA v. Harvard case

WELCOME TO SEASON 2 OF HOMECOMING!!! The Season 2 opener kicks off an informative two-part series on affirmative action, an extremely relevant topic in the U.S. and the Asian American community. Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard will likely go to the Supreme Court, and decades of precedent for affirmative action policies are at stake. But what is affirmative action? And what has been the role of Asian Americans in affirmative action policies in college admissions? In part 1 of the series, Janelle Wong, a professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland and an expert in political attitudes and their relationships with race and religion, joins me to talk about the origins and misconceptions of affirmative action, SFFA v. Harvard, the Yale DOJ lawsuit, and the role of Asian Americans in these cases and policies. Next week, in part 2, a few student leaders and I will debrief and have a conversation about affirmative action, education equity, and how we've navigated (conversations about) college admissions in our own circles. --- Follow Homecoming on Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/homecomingpod/) and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/homecomingpod) to get to know our guests better, receive quick access to updates, and see behind-the-scenes content! You can also find resources from all of our episodes so far here: https://linktr.ee/homecomingpod. --- Affirmative action resources doc I've put together (includes history, Harvard case, Yale DOJ lawsuit, about Edward Blum, and more): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pt55QhpN4-8iIhisi5WzuIwM0pBm8X6kpA_s9vkLCh0/edit?usp=sharing Read more about Professor Wong and her work: https://amst.umd.edu/faculty/janelle-wong/ National Asian American Surveys on AAPI opinions on public policy issues for which Professor Wong was the principal investigator: http://naasurvey.com/data/ --- Thank you to mariokhol and Pixabay for the intro and outro music! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/homecomingpod/support

Just a few weeks ago, federal district judge Allison Burroughs issued a decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, ruling that Harvard was not guilty of racial discrimination and affirming the value of diversity in college admissions. Today's guest, Dennis Saffran, wrote our amicus brief last year supporting Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). Listen in as we discuss what the judge's ruling means for the future of racial preferences.

Why does SFFA argue that Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans? What does that have to do with affirmative action more broadly? Listen in on a mock debate with Eric and Sabrina between the two sides to learn about the deeper arguments underpinning the case.

According to Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), Harvard ranks Asian Americans lower on “personal rating.” What exactly does that mean, and what even is the personal rating? Join Seoyeon, DJ, and Karina as they explore both the history and current implications of the elusive concept that is at the crux of SFFA’s argument — the personal rating.

According to Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), Harvard ranks Asian Americans lower on “personal rating.” What exactly does that mean, and what even is the personal rating? Join Seoyeon, DJ, and Karina as they explore both the history and current implications of the elusive concept that is at the crux of SFFA’s argument — the personal rating.

Why does SFFA argue that Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans? What does that have to do with affirmative action more broadly? Listen in on a mock debate between the two sides to learn about the deeper arguments underpinning the case.

Today we discuss affirmative action, the SFFA v. Harvard case, and our own admissions stories. We also answer listeners' questions related to applying to law school in our "As your attorney" segment.

Patrick and Antonia celebrate 50,000 listens! Then, they provide their unique perspectives as recent college grads and elementary teachers on the SFFA v. Harvard University lawsuit. There's a lot to talk about and a lot to celebrate this week! Purchase our NEW MERCH!!! www.commonsensepod.com/store Follow Us: Patrick: @PresidentPat Antonia: @MsAdamsTeaches Website: Www.commonsensepod.com

Jean-Francois Mercure (Exeter) and Hector Pollit (Cambridge Econometrics) In the first part of the seminar, Hector will introduce the post-Keynesian structure of the E3ME macro-econometric model. He will describe the theoretical basis for the model and key characteristics in terms of assumptions and main properties. He will then show how the model can be applied to assess real-world policies to meet the climate goals that were laid out in the Paris Agreement. He will also present a few examples of how the model has been involved in actual policy making at European level. In the second part of the seminar, Jean-Francois will discuss an application of the model to study the economic impacts of stranded fossil fuel assets. The world is currently seeing an emergent diffusion of low-carbon technology following the adoption of various policies worldwide. This trend is inconsistent with observed investment in new fossil fuel ventures, which could lead to overcapacity and become stranded as a result. The methodology to project low-carbon technology diffusion within the E3ME-FTT-GENIE integrated assessment model will be discussed. The analysis suggests that substantial amounts of stranded fossil fuel assets (SFFA) could occur as a result of an already ongoing technological trajectory, irrespective of whether or not new climate policies are adopted. Speaker biographies: Dr Jean-Francois Mercure is a computational scientist in the area of low-carbon innovation, macroeconomics, finance and climate change. He is Senior Lecturer in Global Systems, University of Exeter. His primary expertise lies in technological change dynamics and evolutionary (innovation) economics.He was formerly deputy director of the Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR) and head of its energy modelling team. Initially trained in physics and complexity science, he spent the past years designing and building computational models for climate change mitigation research, as well as analysing the theoretical underpinnings of contemporary energy-economy models. Dr Mercure leads modelling efforts at C-EENRG. In collaboration with Cambridge Econometrics and the Open University, the models used at C-EENRG cover technology dynamics, the macroeconomy and the biophysical world (the climate, the carbon cycle, the land surface). This makes a new form of Earth System Model, or Integrated Assessment Model, that is entirely simulation-based, and includes technological change dynamics and policy. Hector Pollitt is a Director and the Head of Modelling at Cambridge Econometrics. He is a post-Keynesian economist with particular expertise in macroeconomic modelling, which he has developed through more than a decade of experience working with the global macro-econometric E3ME model. His research focuses on the complex linkages between the economy and the consumption of natural resources. Much of his recent work, both on a research and consultancy basis, is centred around applications of the E3ME model for policy analysis. At European level, Hector has contributed macroeconomic analysis to the official Impact Assessments of the Clean Energy Package and Long-Term Strategy. He is also actively involved in modelling exercises in East Asia, in India and in Latin America. In 2015 he published as co-editor the book Low Carbon, Sustainable Future in East Asia: How to improve the energy system, taxation and policy cooperation. Hector’s expertise extends beyond the use of E3ME and he frequently carries out model review and comparison exercises, including for the UNFCCC. He is a Centre Fellow at the Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance at the University of Cambridge. Speakers: Jean-Francois Mercure (Exeter) and Hector Pollit (Cambridge Econometrics) Released by: SOAS Economics Podcasts

With the verdict in the Harvard admissions lawsuit on the horizon, Escape From Plan A goes beyond the legalistic arguments involved to ask some big picture questions. Should Harvard seek racial diversity in its classes? If so, should it be more open about that instead of blaming Asian Americans for lackluster personalities? And why do Asian Americans repeatedly internalize and accept responsibility for racism we encounter? Join Teen, Oxford, and guest Kasie (from the Anthony Bourdain memorial podcast) as they delve into these difficult questions. Intro Song: Ten Thousand Men of Harvard Outro Song: "The Christmas Song" by Ella Fitzgerald Intro Voice Track: Harvard bar scene from "Good Will Hunting" TWITTER: Teen (@mont_jiang) Oxford (@oxford_kondo) Kasie (@kasefiles) REFERENCED RESOURCES: Students For Fair Admissions complaint: https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SFFA-v.-Harvard-Complaint.pdf Harvard lawsuit documents supporting Harvard: https://admissionscase.harvard.edu/supporting-documents "Anti-Asian Bias, Not Affirmative Action, Is on Trial in the Harvard Case" by Jeannie Suk Gersen: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/anti-asian-bias-not-affirmative-action-is-on-trial-in-the-harvard-case "Admitting Bias" by Aaron Mak: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/harvard-admissions-lawsuit-trial-asian-american-discrimination-reports.html "I support affirmative action. But Harvard really is hurting Asian Americans." by Michael Li: https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/10/18/17995270/asian-americans-affirmative-action-harvard-admissions-lawsuit "Louisiana School Made Headlines for Sending Black Kids to Elite Colleges. Here’s the Reality.": https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/us/tm-landry-college-prep-black-students.html "The Danger of Asian American Conformity" by Teen Sheng: https://planamag.com/the-danger-of-asian-american-conformity-116576c716f2 "Harvard and Edward Blum: Two Defenders of White Plutocracy": https://planamag.com/harvard-edward-blum-defenders-of-white-plutocracy-e7dae5e44d85

In 2014, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard University, alleging that Harvard was violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by, among other things, discriminating against Asian Americans in the admissions process. In its recent motion for summary judgment, SFFA presented statistical evidence that Harvard discriminates both in subjective scoring and selection for admission to limit the number of Asian Americans that attend the college. Harvard’s filing denies all of these claims, stating that the statistical model put forth by SFFA is deeply flawed. They argue that the model ignores essential factors, such as personal essays and teacher recommendations, and omits large sections of the applicant pool, such as recruited athletes and legacy applicants. Harvard explains in their rebuttal that once all relevant information is included, there is no evidence of discrimination. The trial began on October 15th in Boston’s Federal District Court. Harvard officials, as well as past and present students, have testified in support of Harvard. This panel will examine the implications of the case, which many believe is destined for the Supreme Court. The resulting decision will set the precedent for college admission processes nationwide and could transform the nation’s higher education landscape. Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of LawDr. Althea Nagai, Research Fellow, Center for Equal Opportunity Mr. Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC Prof. John Yoo, Professor of Law, University of California, BerkeleyModerator: Hon. James C. Ho, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

In 2014, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard University, alleging that Harvard was violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by, among other things, discriminating against Asian Americans in the admissions process. In its recent motion for summary judgment, SFFA presented statistical evidence that Harvard discriminates both in subjective scoring and selection for admission to limit the number of Asian Americans that attend the college. Harvard’s filing denies all of these claims, stating that the statistical model put forth by SFFA is deeply flawed. They argue that the model ignores essential factors, such as personal essays and teacher recommendations, and omits large sections of the applicant pool, such as recruited athletes and legacy applicants. Harvard explains in their rebuttal that once all relevant information is included, there is no evidence of discrimination. The trial began on October 15th in Boston’s Federal District Court. Harvard officials, as well as past and present students, have testified in support of Harvard. This panel will examine the implications of the case, which many believe is destined for the Supreme Court. The resulting decision will set the precedent for college admission processes nationwide and could transform the nation’s higher education landscape. Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of LawDr. Althea Nagai, Research Fellow, Center for Equal Opportunity Mr. Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC Prof. John Yoo, Professor of Law, University of California, BerkeleyModerator: Hon. James C. Ho, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Today's Rapid Response Friday takes us to the front lines of the affirmative action debate with the trial of Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard, a lawsuit brought by a single-issue right-wing activist determined to end diversity as a criterion in school admissions.  (And yes, we tell you what we really think!) We begin, however, with some news regarding the Monsanto trial we profiled back in Episode 202. After that, it's time for a deep dive into the nuances of affirmative action with the SFFA v. Harvard lawsuit.  What exactly does it allege?  What's the status of affirmative action law?  Where is this lawsuit going?  Listen and find out! Then it's time for a brief Andrew Was segment, in which Andrew Was Wrong about the UK Supreme Court, and Andrew Was... Something... about the good news coming out of the Florida Supreme Court. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #98 regarding constitutional standards.  Thomas needs to go 2-for-3 after a recent audit showed a bank error in his favor.  Can he do it?  You'll have to listen and find out!  And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We first covered the Monsanto trial back in Episode 202; go check it out! Click here to read the Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard lawsuit. To understand the history of affirmative action, listen to our Episode 93, and check out both Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) and Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), the cases we discussed in the episode. I mentioned the Etzkowitz et al. article on critical mass; you can read that here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

（曹越对本音频剪辑亦有贡献） 华裔，或者说亚裔，是否在美国大学入学中受到了歧视？ 数据和证据正在浮出水面，而这都是由于一个犹太裔老头 Edward Blum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blum_(litigant)) 的努力。他2014年开始起诉哈佛 (http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SFFA-v.-Harvard-Complaint.pdf)，在这过程中，哈佛不得不披露一些证据；而就在这两天，美国司法部也公布调查结果，称哈佛在招生中使用“个人评级”，损害了亚裔美国人相较其他种族群体的入学机会 (http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001079212?full=y)。 一个月后，波士顿联邦法院将会开庭审理这场诉哈佛的案件，而这多少会影响到亚裔未来大学升学机会。 这场诉讼来龙去脉究竟如何？这个犹太人又为何会积极组织这场诉讼？对亚裔不利的大学入学政策又有什么原因？ 这次和我们一起讨论这一话题的是王子元，硅谷连续创业者，同时也是此次诉讼的积极关注者。 当然，如果听完之后觉得想要为之做些什么，相关捐款地址在这里 (https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/donate/) ，也欢迎讨论。 Enjoy！ 相关信息 1. Edward Blum的相关信息：He Took On the Voting Rights Act and Won. Now He’s Taking On Harvard. - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/us/affirmative-action-lawsuits.html) 2. SFFA 网站 Legal Issues | Students for Fair Admissions (https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/legal-issues/)，以及捐款地址 (https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/donate/) 3. SFFA作为原告的诉状 (http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SFFA-v.-Harvard-Complaint.pdf) 4. 提及 mismatch 理论的两篇文章 Is Affirmative Action Harming Minority Groups More Than It Helps? - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/12/is-affirmative-action-harming-minority-groups-more-than-it-helps/420429/), Justice Scalia and ‘Mismatch Theory’ in University Admissions - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/the-needlessly-polarized-mismatch-theory-debate/420321/). 5. 平权运动下，亚裔美国人的挣扎与分裂丨纽约时报 (https://cn.nytimes.com/education/20180620/affirmative-action-asian-americans/) 6. 报告指哈佛大学给亚裔申请者性格打低分丨纽约时报 (https://cn.nytimes.com/usa/20180619/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants/) 7. 美國大學為何不能接受更多亞裔學生丨纽约时报 (https://cn.nytimes.com/opinion/20170203/white-students-unfair-advantage-in-admissions/zh-hant/) 8. 访谈中提到的一个 Podcast host 对 Edward Blum 的采访 (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669?mt=2&i=1000393398094) 9. 纽约时报 podcast The Daily 相关的一期节目 (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736?mt=2&i=1000390657828) 10. 关于平权法案和费雪案一个法律解读：“平权法案”(Affirmative Action)与费雪案：什么是真正的公平 (https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/21495846) Special Guest: 王子元.

In 2014, the Students for Fair Admissions ("SFFA"), a membership organization comprised of students, parents, and concerned citizens, sued both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for racial discrimination in the admissions process. SFFA alleged that the universities were capping the number of Asian Americans they admit and using racial classifications to engage in discrimination. After a brief stay pending resolution of Fisher v. University of Texas, both cases are now moving forward. This call will provide a litigation update on these and other cases. -- Featuring: Mr. William Consovoy, the lead attorney for SFFA, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC.