3 ms·

> Harvard is NOT a public school! It is a private institution which receives public funds. Huge difference but I guess that's not something you want to consider

> Harvard is NOT a public school! It is a private institution which receives public funds. Huge difference but I guess that's not something you want to consider. That’s okay, because CJ Roberts did consider it. > Title VI provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 12 U.S. C.§2000d. "We have explained that discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment committed by an institution that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI." Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244, 276, n. 23 (2003). Although JUSTICE GORSUCH questions that proposition, no party asks us to reconsider it. We accordingly evaluate Harvard's admissions program under the standards of the Equal Protection Clause itself.

rendang 3y ago
I'm not a legal expert and was wondering about the same question. Does the reasoning imply then that if Harvard wanted to forgo Pell Grants and other public funding a la Bob Jones University back in the day, they'd be permitted to practice AA?
- remarkEon 3y ago
  I am not a lawyer but my understanding is it just means that as long as they do, they are evaluated as a public institution for the purposes of interpreting compliance with the Fourteen Amendment. I don’t know if it would be permissible to do explicit racial discrimination and call it AA, and then say “well we don’t take federal funding anymore so we’re good”. Interesting thought experiment, however.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    It should be legal, yes. As it should be legal for private business owners to discriminate as well. It would be terrible for them economically, as one would hope they would lose customers due to the policy, but that's what it should be.
    - remarkEon 3y ago
      I just finished reading the whole opinion, and yeah I think Justice Thomas would agree with you. He, in his concurrence, is super hostile to any sort of racial preference or protection. Holy Moly is this guy angry about racial preferences for anything. He started his concurrence with a history of slavery and proceeds through an excruciatingly detailed legal history of how we got rid of it. If he were here in the thread, he'd probably say "you are bound by your own predilections, as afforded to you by the Constitution, but if those predilections manifest harm in your result, you will find no quarter with me."

rendang 3y ago

I'm not a legal expert and was wondering about the same question. Does the reasoning imply then that if Harvard wanted to forgo Pell Grants and other public funding a la Bob Jones University back in the day, they'd be permitted to practice AA?

remarkEon 3y ago
I am not a lawyer but my understanding is it just means that as long as they do, they are evaluated as a public institution for the purposes of interpreting compliance with the Fourteen Amendment. I don’t know if it would be permissible to do explicit racial discrimination and call it AA, and then say “well we don’t take federal funding anymore so we’re good”. Interesting thought experiment, however.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  It should be legal, yes. As it should be legal for private business owners to discriminate as well. It would be terrible for them economically, as one would hope they would lose customers due to the policy, but that's what it should be.
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    I just finished reading the whole opinion, and yeah I think Justice Thomas would agree with you. He, in his concurrence, is super hostile to any sort of racial preference or protection. Holy Moly is this guy angry about racial preferences for anything. He started his concurrence with a history of slavery and proceeds through an excruciatingly detailed legal history of how we got rid of it. If he were here in the thread, he'd probably say "you are bound by your own predilections, as afforded to you by the Constitution, but if those predilections manifest harm in your result, you will find no quarter with me."