POPULARITY
10 episodes with sffa
7 episodes with sffa
5 episodes with sffa
3 episodes with sffa
4 episodes with sffa
4 episodes with sffa
4 episodes with sffa
2 episodes with sffa
2 episodes with sffa
In Race, Class, and Affirmative Action: College Admissions in a New Era (Harvard Education Press, 2026), Julie J. Park offers deft analysis of the changes to college admissions and campus life since the US Supreme Court ruled to restrict race-conscious policies in two 2023 cases: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Park offers clear explanations of the rulings, their historical context, and their implications for higher education policy. She highlights how the Supreme Court still allows campuses to consider the role of race in students' experiences and that numerous tools to advance diversity in admissions remain. In this lively, timely work, Park points out the swift and stark post-ruling shifts in campus demographics and grapples with questions of how to push toward a more equitable admissions system. She investigates alternative initiatives, such as test-optional and test-free admissions, percent plans, and others, weighing their merits and drawbacks. She also examines inequality affecting college applications themselves and offers ideas for reform. Integrating up-to-the minute research on admissions, standardized testing, enrollment management, and the campus racial climate, Park recommends actions that can advance equity-oriented access to higher education despite the current restrictions on race-conscious admissions. Park ends with a call to campus leaders, policymakers, and practitioners to reimagine selective college admissions and attendance and offers a glimpse of what the future could hold. Julie J. Park is a professor in the College of Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. An expert on race and diversity in higher education, she served as a consulting expert in the landmark case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard on the side of Harvard. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
In Race, Class, and Affirmative Action: College Admissions in a New Era (Harvard Education Press, 2026), Julie J. Park offers deft analysis of the changes to college admissions and campus life since the US Supreme Court ruled to restrict race-conscious policies in two 2023 cases: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Park offers clear explanations of the rulings, their historical context, and their implications for higher education policy. She highlights how the Supreme Court still allows campuses to consider the role of race in students' experiences and that numerous tools to advance diversity in admissions remain. In this lively, timely work, Park points out the swift and stark post-ruling shifts in campus demographics and grapples with questions of how to push toward a more equitable admissions system. She investigates alternative initiatives, such as test-optional and test-free admissions, percent plans, and others, weighing their merits and drawbacks. She also examines inequality affecting college applications themselves and offers ideas for reform. Integrating up-to-the minute research on admissions, standardized testing, enrollment management, and the campus racial climate, Park recommends actions that can advance equity-oriented access to higher education despite the current restrictions on race-conscious admissions. Park ends with a call to campus leaders, policymakers, and practitioners to reimagine selective college admissions and attendance and offers a glimpse of what the future could hold. Julie J. Park is a professor in the College of Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. An expert on race and diversity in higher education, she served as a consulting expert in the landmark case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard on the side of Harvard. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/asian-american-studies
In Race, Class, and Affirmative Action: College Admissions in a New Era (Harvard Education Press, 2026), Julie J. Park offers deft analysis of the changes to college admissions and campus life since the US Supreme Court ruled to restrict race-conscious policies in two 2023 cases: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Park offers clear explanations of the rulings, their historical context, and their implications for higher education policy. She highlights how the Supreme Court still allows campuses to consider the role of race in students' experiences and that numerous tools to advance diversity in admissions remain. In this lively, timely work, Park points out the swift and stark post-ruling shifts in campus demographics and grapples with questions of how to push toward a more equitable admissions system. She investigates alternative initiatives, such as test-optional and test-free admissions, percent plans, and others, weighing their merits and drawbacks. She also examines inequality affecting college applications themselves and offers ideas for reform. Integrating up-to-the minute research on admissions, standardized testing, enrollment management, and the campus racial climate, Park recommends actions that can advance equity-oriented access to higher education despite the current restrictions on race-conscious admissions. Park ends with a call to campus leaders, policymakers, and practitioners to reimagine selective college admissions and attendance and offers a glimpse of what the future could hold. Julie J. Park is a professor in the College of Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. An expert on race and diversity in higher education, she served as a consulting expert in the landmark case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard on the side of Harvard. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology
In Race, Class, and Affirmative Action: College Admissions in a New Era (Harvard Education Press, 2026), Julie J. Park offers deft analysis of the changes to college admissions and campus life since the US Supreme Court ruled to restrict race-conscious policies in two 2023 cases: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Park offers clear explanations of the rulings, their historical context, and their implications for higher education policy. She highlights how the Supreme Court still allows campuses to consider the role of race in students' experiences and that numerous tools to advance diversity in admissions remain. In this lively, timely work, Park points out the swift and stark post-ruling shifts in campus demographics and grapples with questions of how to push toward a more equitable admissions system. She investigates alternative initiatives, such as test-optional and test-free admissions, percent plans, and others, weighing their merits and drawbacks. She also examines inequality affecting college applications themselves and offers ideas for reform. Integrating up-to-the minute research on admissions, standardized testing, enrollment management, and the campus racial climate, Park recommends actions that can advance equity-oriented access to higher education despite the current restrictions on race-conscious admissions. Park ends with a call to campus leaders, policymakers, and practitioners to reimagine selective college admissions and attendance and offers a glimpse of what the future could hold. Julie J. Park is a professor in the College of Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. An expert on race and diversity in higher education, she served as a consulting expert in the landmark case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard on the side of Harvard. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies
In Race, Class, and Affirmative Action: College Admissions in a New Era (Harvard Education Press, 2026), Julie J. Park offers deft analysis of the changes to college admissions and campus life since the US Supreme Court ruled to restrict race-conscious policies in two 2023 cases: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Park offers clear explanations of the rulings, their historical context, and their implications for higher education policy. She highlights how the Supreme Court still allows campuses to consider the role of race in students' experiences and that numerous tools to advance diversity in admissions remain. In this lively, timely work, Park points out the swift and stark post-ruling shifts in campus demographics and grapples with questions of how to push toward a more equitable admissions system. She investigates alternative initiatives, such as test-optional and test-free admissions, percent plans, and others, weighing their merits and drawbacks. She also examines inequality affecting college applications themselves and offers ideas for reform. Integrating up-to-the minute research on admissions, standardized testing, enrollment management, and the campus racial climate, Park recommends actions that can advance equity-oriented access to higher education despite the current restrictions on race-conscious admissions. Park ends with a call to campus leaders, policymakers, and practitioners to reimagine selective college admissions and attendance and offers a glimpse of what the future could hold. Julie J. Park is a professor in the College of Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. An expert on race and diversity in higher education, she served as a consulting expert in the landmark case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard on the side of Harvard. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/education
In Race, Class, and Affirmative Action: College Admissions in a New Era (Harvard Education Press, 2026), Julie J. Park offers deft analysis of the changes to college admissions and campus life since the US Supreme Court ruled to restrict race-conscious policies in two 2023 cases: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Park offers clear explanations of the rulings, their historical context, and their implications for higher education policy. She highlights how the Supreme Court still allows campuses to consider the role of race in students' experiences and that numerous tools to advance diversity in admissions remain. In this lively, timely work, Park points out the swift and stark post-ruling shifts in campus demographics and grapples with questions of how to push toward a more equitable admissions system. She investigates alternative initiatives, such as test-optional and test-free admissions, percent plans, and others, weighing their merits and drawbacks. She also examines inequality affecting college applications themselves and offers ideas for reform. Integrating up-to-the minute research on admissions, standardized testing, enrollment management, and the campus racial climate, Park recommends actions that can advance equity-oriented access to higher education despite the current restrictions on race-conscious admissions. Park ends with a call to campus leaders, policymakers, and practitioners to reimagine selective college admissions and attendance and offers a glimpse of what the future could hold. Julie J. Park is a professor in the College of Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. An expert on race and diversity in higher education, she served as a consulting expert in the landmark case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard on the side of Harvard. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law
In Race, Class, and Affirmative Action: College Admissions in a New Era (Harvard Education Press, 2026), Julie J. Park offers deft analysis of the changes to college admissions and campus life since the US Supreme Court ruled to restrict race-conscious policies in two 2023 cases: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Park offers clear explanations of the rulings, their historical context, and their implications for higher education policy. She highlights how the Supreme Court still allows campuses to consider the role of race in students' experiences and that numerous tools to advance diversity in admissions remain. In this lively, timely work, Park points out the swift and stark post-ruling shifts in campus demographics and grapples with questions of how to push toward a more equitable admissions system. She investigates alternative initiatives, such as test-optional and test-free admissions, percent plans, and others, weighing their merits and drawbacks. She also examines inequality affecting college applications themselves and offers ideas for reform. Integrating up-to-the minute research on admissions, standardized testing, enrollment management, and the campus racial climate, Park recommends actions that can advance equity-oriented access to higher education despite the current restrictions on race-conscious admissions. Park ends with a call to campus leaders, policymakers, and practitioners to reimagine selective college admissions and attendance and offers a glimpse of what the future could hold. Julie J. Park is a professor in the College of Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. An expert on race and diversity in higher education, she served as a consulting expert in the landmark case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard on the side of Harvard. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In Race, Class, and Affirmative Action: College Admissions in a New Era (Harvard Education Press, 2026), Julie J. Park offers deft analysis of the changes to college admissions and campus life since the US Supreme Court ruled to restrict race-conscious policies in two 2023 cases: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Park offers clear explanations of the rulings, their historical context, and their implications for higher education policy. She highlights how the Supreme Court still allows campuses to consider the role of race in students' experiences and that numerous tools to advance diversity in admissions remain. In this lively, timely work, Park points out the swift and stark post-ruling shifts in campus demographics and grapples with questions of how to push toward a more equitable admissions system. She investigates alternative initiatives, such as test-optional and test-free admissions, percent plans, and others, weighing their merits and drawbacks. She also examines inequality affecting college applications themselves and offers ideas for reform. Integrating up-to-the minute research on admissions, standardized testing, enrollment management, and the campus racial climate, Park recommends actions that can advance equity-oriented access to higher education despite the current restrictions on race-conscious admissions. Park ends with a call to campus leaders, policymakers, and practitioners to reimagine selective college admissions and attendance and offers a glimpse of what the future could hold. Julie J. Park is a professor in the College of Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. An expert on race and diversity in higher education, she served as a consulting expert in the landmark case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard on the side of Harvard. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In Race, Class, and Affirmative Action: College Admissions in a New Era (Harvard Education Press, 2026), Julie J. Park offers deft analysis of the changes to college admissions and campus life since the US Supreme Court ruled to restrict race-conscious policies in two 2023 cases: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Park offers clear explanations of the rulings, their historical context, and their implications for higher education policy. She highlights how the Supreme Court still allows campuses to consider the role of race in students' experiences and that numerous tools to advance diversity in admissions remain. In this lively, timely work, Park points out the swift and stark post-ruling shifts in campus demographics and grapples with questions of how to push toward a more equitable admissions system. She investigates alternative initiatives, such as test-optional and test-free admissions, percent plans, and others, weighing their merits and drawbacks. She also examines inequality affecting college applications themselves and offers ideas for reform. Integrating up-to-the minute research on admissions, standardized testing, enrollment management, and the campus racial climate, Park recommends actions that can advance equity-oriented access to higher education despite the current restrictions on race-conscious admissions. Park ends with a call to campus leaders, policymakers, and practitioners to reimagine selective college admissions and attendance and offers a glimpse of what the future could hold. Julie J. Park is a professor in the College of Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. An expert on race and diversity in higher education, she served as a consulting expert in the landmark case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard on the side of Harvard. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day
Yvette Borja interviews law professor Jonathan Feingold about his law review article examining the tools that universities have to promote racial diversity and inclusion in the wake of the SFFA Supreme Court case. Feingold breaks down why institutions of higher education have backed away from efforts moving towards racial equity despite these openings. Read Jonathan's article here: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4769&context=faculty_scholarshipCheck out the book "Banned: The Fight for Mexican American Studies in the Streets and in the Courts" by Nolan Cabrera and Bob Chang here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/banned/8949DEDAA2FA939E11551FA97B418747Learn more about the U of A consolidating its cultural centers here: https://www.kjzz.org/the-show/2025-06-03/ua-has-consolidated-several-campus-resource-centers-what-this-means-for-studentsSupport the podcast by becoming a patron at: https://patreon.com/radiocachimbona?utm_medium=unknown&utm_source=join_link&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=copyLinkFollow @radiocachimbona on Instagram, X, and Facebook
In this throwback interview (Ep. 79 in 2023), join co-hosts Adrian M. Gibson and M.J. Kuhn as they chat with bestselling author Jim Butcher about his novel The Olympian Affair, The Dresden Files and the Codex Alera series, teaching his son James J. Butcher everything he knows, a dream Dresden anime, Lois Bujold and The Vorkosigan Saga, writing cats and animal POVs, cherished mentors, paying it forward, blending genres, weightlifting and much more.ABOUT OUR GUEST:Jim Butcher is the bestselling author of The Dresden Files, the Codex Alera series, and the Cinder Spires series.Find Jim on Amazon and his personal website.
In this throwback interview (Ep. 55 in 2023), join co-hosts Adrian M. Gibson and M.J. Kuhn as they chat with award-winning, bestselling author Martha Wells about her novel Witch King, her acclaimed The Murderbot Diaries series, hard lessons from her decades-long publishing career, re-releasing old works (and confronting her younger self's writing), writing both science fiction and fantasy, demons, The Untamed, Mr. Snuffleupagus and much more.ABOUT OUR GUEST:Martha Wells is the award-winning, bestselling SFF author of The Murderbot Diaries, Witch King, The Books of the Raksura series, The Death of the Necromancer, the Fall of Ile-Rien trilogy and more, along with short fiction, YA novels, and non-fiction.Find Martha on Amazon and her personal website.
In this throwback interview (Ep. 109 in 2024), join co-hosts Adrian M. Gibson and M.J. Kuhn as they chat with author Christopher Buehlman about his novels The Daughters' War and The Blacktongue Thief, renaissance fairs, "Christoph the Insulter," comedy and empathy, creating an engrossing atmosphere, writing a range of voices and tones, invention vs. research, trusting your characters and much more.ABOUT OUR GUEST:Christopher Buehlman is an author, comedian, playwright and poet, best known for his novels The Blacktongue Thief, The Daughters' War, Between Two Fires, Those Across the River, The Suicide Motor Club and more.Find Christopher on Instagram, Amazon and his personal website.
In this throwback interview (Ep. 47 in 2023), join co-hosts Adrian M. Gibson and M.J. Kuhn as they chat with award-winning SFF author Fonda Lee about her novella Untethered Sky, her series The Green Bone Saga, writing both sci-fi and fantasy, TV adaptations, the corporate vs. publishing worlds, falconry, manticores, worldbuilding and much more.ABOUT OUR GUEST:Fonda Lee is the award-winning author of The Green Bone Saga, including Jade City, Jade War and Jade Legacy, as well as Untethered Sky, Zeroboxer and the Exo series.Find Fonda on Instagram, Amazon, Patreon and her personal website.
For the season finale, we're joined by Yale law professor Justin Driver to talk about his new book, "The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Higher Education." We discuss the conservative cases for and against affirmative action, the post-SFFA world of university admissions, the promise and limits of colorblindness, and the effects of admissions policies on students' sense of belonging.
Yale Law's Justin Driver argues that SFFA v. Harvard/UNC broke with precedent and embraced a faux “colorblindness,” spotlighting the Court's creative reading of Grutter's 2028 “sunset.” He lays out the early fallout—sharp drops in Black enrollment at elite schools, Asian American gains, and the perverse incentive for applicants to “essay their trauma.” We debate mismatch theory, legacy and athletics preferences, and how universities can lawfully pursue diversity without outright defiance. Also: Argentina's bailout, the Tylenol culture war, and new federal threats to district DEI funding. Produced by Corey Wara Production Coordinator Ashley Khan Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, contact ad-sales@libsyn.com or visit https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist Subscribe to The Gist: https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g Subscribe to The Gist Instagram Page: GIST INSTAGRAM Follow The Gist List at: Pesca Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack
Sarah Isgur and David French sit down with Justin Driver, the Robert R. Slaughter Professor of Law at Yale Law School, to talk about his new book, The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Higher Education. They explore the landmark case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, a ruling celebrated by conservatives as a victory for colorblind principles and criticized by progressives as a blow to racial equity. But according to Driver, both perspectives miss the mark. The Agenda:—DMing Pam Bondi?—Brendan Carr weaponizing the FCC—‘I sued the Obama administration.'—Victimization and mismatch in affirmative action arguments—SFFA and race neutral mechanisms—The future of race-neutral policies Show Notes:—The Morning Dispatch on the FCC Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Are you confident your organization's diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are legally sound? In this episode of the Imagine Belonging Podcast mini-series, "Navigating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion's New Reality," we explore the shifting legal landscape and what it means for your workplace. Host Rhodes Perry provides a clear-eyed analysis of the legal attacks on workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, including recent court rulings, executive actions, and congressional proposals. This episode gives you the essential legal context to fortify your diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Rhodes will demystify recent judicial decisions like the U.S. Supreme Court's Students for Fair Admissions ruling and explain the three-pronged legal test (aka, "the three p's") to determine if your programming is at risk. You'll learn best practices for conducting legal audits and how to build a strategic advisory team to protect your organization. Tune in to discover how to mitigate legal and reputational risks while strengthening your commitment to advancing your organization's belonging strategy. Key Takeaways & Timestamps [2:15] Overview of the legal landscape impacting DEI [4:00] Analysis of the SFFA and Muldrow v. City of St. Louis Supreme Court decisions [6:30] Impact of Executive and Congressional actions [9:00] Best practices for fortifying your DEI work [11:00] The "three p's" legal test for discrimination claims [14:20] Practices to avoid to mitigate risk Grow the Belonging Movement!
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
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
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
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/
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.
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
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
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
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.
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)
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
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 […]
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
