SCOOP: Biden's COVID team appears to have entertained a test-and-trace app that would have let businesses deny service to patrons based on their health data.
It also would have divided users into three color-coded categories—just like China did last year.freebeacon.com/coronavirus/co…
The app was pioneered by the University of Illinois, which apparently tried to sell Biden on scaling up the school's contact tracing system. It records test results and Bluetooth data to determine who has been exposed to the virus—and "links building access" to that information.
The system resembles the one being used in China, where a mandatory app gives each user a "health status"—green, yellow, or red—that dictates access to public spaces. The University of Illinois app likewise divides users into three categories: yellow, orange, and red.
The proposal would amount to a more extreme version of so-called vaccine passports. Those passports collect less information and use a less granular classification scheme than the University of Illinois app, meaning they pose relatively fewer risks to civil liberties.
The proposal also threatens to exclude far more Americans from public life than measures like voter ID laws, which progressives have decried as the "new Jim Crow." Only 11% of Americans do not have a government-issued ID, whereas 19% don't own a smartphone.
The system could have enabled faster reopenings at lower risk, without centralizing surveillance in the hands of the federal government. But it would likely have encouraged a form of decentralized surveillance among businesses and local bureaucrats, which poses its own threats.
In order to be effective, the app requires widespread participation—meaning local institutions would have a strong incentive to mandate it, even if they weren't technically required to. That could be the beginning of a kind of social credit system.
The app collects less data, and has more built-in privacy protections, than some other systems. And with over a sixth of the population fully vaccinated, Biden seems to have left it on the chopping block.
But whether it stays there in future crises is an open question.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEW: 44 of the nation’s largest law firms were hit with a discrimination complaint on Monday alleging that they use an outside staffing agency to hire interns based on race.
These are some of the same firms that pledged to end DEI hiring as part of their deals with Trump.🧵
The complaint, filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, targets Sponsors for Educational Opportunity (SEO), a nonprofit that places minority students at elite firms the summer before their first year of law school.
The paid internship often leads to a return offer the following summers, giving recipients an extraordinary leg up on their white peers.
EXCLUSIVE: The EEOC is investigating Harvard's faculty hiring practices after the school boasted online that it had increased the number of ‘women, non-binary, and/or people of color' on faculty—and decreased the number of white men.
The probe is based on Harvard's own data.🧵
The EEOC is sixth federal agency to launch a probe of Harvard. The investigation is based on materials from the school's website—many of them now deleted—in which Harvard bragged about increasing the number of "women, non-binary, and/or people of color" on faculty.
The largest increase was in the share of non-white tenure-track faculty, which rose by 37 percent between 2013 and 2023.
The majority of those new hires, Harvard noted in a 2023 report, had been made in the past year.
NEW: UCLA medical school was sued today for discriminating against whites and Asians in admissions.
The lawsuit is based on my reporting from last year. It was filed by Students for Fair Admissions—the same group that got affirmative action outlawed nationwide.🧵
SFFA scored a landmark victory against Harvard University in 2023 when the Supreme Court ruled that racial preferences were unconstitutional. Now the group’s president, Edward Blum, is framing the UCLA lawsuit as a sequel to the Harvard case.
"This lawsuit sends an important message to every institution of higher education: Any school and administrator that uses race and racial proxies in admissions in defiance of the Supreme Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard will be sued," Blum said.
NEW: In March, the Trump administration said it would investigate whether UCLA medical school's admissions office discriminates based on race.
Two weeks later, the med school promised to do just that, telling students in writing that it would pick "BIPOC" admissions officers.🧵
On April 8, the school circulated a memo that outlined "guiding principles for student representation on the admissions committee," which includes 3rd and 4th year students. Those guidelines require the committee to consider race when picking student admissions officers.
"The Chairs of the [admissions committee] will review all submitted recommendations to ensure representation from those who identify as BIPOC and LGBTQ+," the memo reads, according to a screenshot obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
NEW: The Trump administration said Monday it would investigate the Harvard Law Review for race discrimination.
72 hours later, the journal asked applicants to disclose their race in their personal statements, so that it could select editors from "diverse … backgrounds."🧵
The journal sent an email to all first-year law students that included a memo that encouraged applicants to "convey aspects of their identity," including their race, through an optional "holistic review" statement.
"This statement may identify and describe aspects of your identity not fully captured by the categories on the previous page," the essay prompt reads.
NEW: As the Trump administration investigates the Harvard Law Review over the journal’s race-based policies, the law review itself will be conducting its own investigation—not into the documents showing patent discrimination, but into who leaked those documents to yours truly.🧵
The journal’s top editors asked members of the law review last week to come forward with any information that might help identify the leaker, writing, "The information contained in the article should not have been shared."
"We are looking into the matter," the editors said Friday in an email. "Our inboxes and offices are open to anyone with information about these recent events. We will update you with developments."