I'll be closely following today's #affirmativeaction arguments in SCOTUS. While recent coverage has focused on court's legitimacy and arguments over the meaning of Brown, much of the argument comes back, as @kenji_yoshino says here to the 14th Amendment. nytimes.com/2022/10/30/us/…
"This has always been the crux of the affirmative action debate. Does the 14th A’s equal protection clause forbid racial classification itself or only racial classification that entrenches historical subordination?”
If you care what the amendment's framers thought, the evidence is clear: the equal protection clause does not forbid racial classification itself. Historians and legal scholars put that evidence into the record in this brief: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…
We were honored to work with tremendous attorneys at Cooley and to have a chance to rebut the breathtakingly weak "historical" argument advanced on the other side by Edwin Meese, the former US atty general. Grateful to the many historians & others who signed on. History matters.
Jackson now pointing out that under Strawbridge interpretation of 14 A, the Black applicant actually faces a *disadvantage.* The supposed "race neutrality" requirement is truly a perversion of this country's history.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
