4 ms·

That's not true the way you claim it to be. I just read the full decision, and there's a pretty decent number of citations of existing case law discussing what

That's not true the way you claim it to be. I just read the full decision, and there's a pretty decent number of citations of existing case law discussing what does and doesn't count as discriminating by race, specifically within the context of college admissions. It's in the last 1/3 of the document after the findings of fact and discussions of statistical analyses. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzqBPL57yCRWHZGE7A6U6re3cGX-KTEl/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzqBPL57yCRWHZGE7A6U6re3cGX... You might disagree with the reasoning of the decision, but there's already case law separating education from employment. Past that we get into slippery slope territory that this decision specifically avoids.

javagram 7y ago
My point is that case law vs an explicit statement of law is not the same. Judges in the future may rule that tech companies can pass strict scrutiny if they are discriminating against Asians in favor of other races, using similar arguments to those in education law. This area of law is slippery because the text of Federal civil rights law doesn’t allow for discrimination, but case law (and arguably the original intent of the law’s authors) does. There is currently a large movement in favor of “diversity” programs in hiring and I can see judges upholding them. Absolutely reading the decision will be informative to everyone though.