,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Anticipation builds pending the release of the federal district ct’s post-trial opinion in the SFFA lawsuit challenging Harvard’s consideration of race in admission. Even at this stage, several knowable points that merit reflection. #sffavharvard #affirmativeaction
1/
1/
1. Despite the hype (it *is* Harvard), that trial-level judgment will be binding only with respect to the parties. It will not be precedential in any other sense, though to be sure, it will merit serious study and reflection.
2/
2/
2. Higher education leaders should neither over- nor under-react to the decision. (The press will, but that’s sorta their job. And they may try to get you to, as well.) Cases depend on facts, which in this context are necessarily tied to a particular setting.
3/
3/
2. cont'd. Consequences of the decision may extend beyond the facts of Harvard, but only a careful analysis of the decision will tell that tale. Forecast: pay attention to how the court focuses on the *design* of Harvard’s polices (implicating broader impact) ...
4/
4/
2. cont'd. ...vs. *implementation* of those policies (which may well be particularly Harvard-specific).
5/
5/
3. Any decision is almost certain to be appealed. Consider the decision a 1st chapter in a multi-chapter book. There’s also no guarantee of a chapter entitled “What the U.S. Supreme Court thinks.” In cases of this sort, Supreme Court review is discretionary.
6/
6/
4. The College Board’s Access and Diversity Collaborative, which I help lead, will provide substantive guidance for the field within weeks of the decision. Stay tuned.
7/7
7/7
