3 ms·
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 fun
by 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 agoI 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 agoIt 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 agoI 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."