5 ms·

I admittedly skimmed the opinion, but is this the first case that establishes a private entity like Harvard University is bound by the Equal Protections Clause?

• jeffbee 3y ago
  The private nature of Harvard is debatable. The value of the subsidy represented by the tax exemption of their endowment is $50k per student per year.
  • duped 3y ago
    It's not debatable, Harvard is a private entity. The fact they receive tax preference or federal funding and whether they should if the government considers their acceptance policy to be racist is a very different question than the one in the opinion, as far as I can tell. And whatever debate could be held seems to be absent in the opinion, which is why I asked.
• adolph 3y ago
  The Equal Protection Clause operates on States. It does not purport to regulate the conduct of private parties. By contrast, Title VI applies to recipients of federal funds—covering not just many state actors, but many private actors too. In this way, Title VI reaches entities and organizations that the Equal Protection Clause does not. p 129 of https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• mindslight 3y ago
  Yeah, I do not understand this claimed basis of Equal Protection either. Taking into account only equal protection, it would still be acceptable for a private institution to say "We want to limit our association with $RACE". Such a policy does not rise to the level of being law (notwithstanding that private institution being considered a de facto arm of the government, which is an argument I'm open to but doesn't seem to have been explored here). If the reasoning of this decision hinged upon interpretation of the Civil Rights Act as banning "positive discrimination", that would make sense independently (I think a concurring opinion might be based on this?). If Harvard College maintained that it didn't want to be discriminating based on race but was being forced to by Title VI, I would see the link to Equal Protection. But as presented the majority opinion seems like a mismatch trying to somehow tie the issue directly to constitutionality. edit: I think they're getting there by this chain: Title VI has provisions mandating equality. Due to the Equal Protection clause, Title VI's provisions that prohibit discrimination must also be construed to prohibit "positive" discrimination. Therefore Harvard is bound by this new interpretation of Title VI which prohibits it from engaging in "positive" discrimination. (contrast with simply ruling parts of Title VI unconstitutional and therefore null and void) Ultimately this feels in line with the continued erosion of separation of powers as every activity gradually comes under the purview of the federal government.
• torstenvl 3y ago
  I was also confused by this, at first. However, it's explained in footnote 2 of the majority opinion. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act makes the analysis identical for public institutions and private institutions subject to the Civil Rights Act.
  • leephillips 3y ago
    However, the text of the opinion only invokes the 14th Amendment, not this Act or any other federal law. So I share this confusion.
• stjohnswarts 3y ago
  Corporations are also private entities and they have to also adhere to the Civil Rights Act and not discriminate based on race/ethnicity, why wouldn't Harvard?
  • duped 3y ago
    Because the discussion is over Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and not title VI of the Civil Rights Act, but neither is applicable to what you're talking about
• ProllyInfamous 3y ago
  From majority opinion: "The universities' main response to these criticisms is 'trust us' ... Universities may define their missions as they see fit. The Constitution defines ours."