THREAD. Admissions officer here 🙋🏾♀️ IMO Harvard/UNC opinion is much narrower than I expected it to be and impact will be much less than I see a lot of people suggesting -- and possibly give institutions MORE ability to curate classes based on diversity interests 1/
2. The implicit question here and the one the justices disagree on is this: Can race be a proxy for experience? Harvard/UNC/dissent says yes, majority says no, these can be bifurcated: race can't be a proxy, but an individual story of how race has shaped person CAN be considered
3. There are implications here: It means that applicants whose identity is shaped by race will need to articulate that explicitly in order for it to be taken into account. This is an added burden on the applicant. But, most apps include a supplemental diversity essay already
4. However, it seems to me that in making more explicit *how* a students' background impacts experience/perspective, schools will have a much easier time DEFENDING why race mattered in admitting that person...and test scores, etc. become less of the comparison point
5. My point is that this decision seems to be giving MORE latitude for subjective and holistic admissions decisions, as long as they are defensible on a case by case basis. It becomes harder to argue that X should not have been admitted over Y, as SFFA did here
6. Other implication is that institutions can't monitor overall racial composition of a class in admissions process (though it may in other respects, i.e., gender, geography, socioeconomics, etc.). So "diversity in aggregate" (representation) can't be a conscious consideration
7. This might be the more problematic point, but it's notable that Harvard/UNC did not seem to be arguing that there is an inherent diversity benefit by having a class racial composition mirror the larger society or applicant pool from which it draws. Not sure why they didn't
8. But in the end, this doesn't categorically bar consideration of race (which it could have), and it is limited to admissions process: Doesn't seem to bar schools from increasing diversity recruitment based on race, or having yield programs targeted for admitted minorities
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today's SCOTUS opinion in the AL redistricting case illustrates consequences of what @steve_vladeck calls the "shadow docket." Ct upheld lower court, which itself applied clear precedent...but it STAYED the lower court pending decision, allowing illegal map to be used in 2022! 1/
The Court says that lower court "faithfully applied our precedents" and that the state's challenge was trying to "remake Sec. 2 jurisprudence anew"...and yet did not allow the lower court's "faithful" application (upheld by appeals ct with 2 Trump appointees) to take effect 2/
Highly recommend @steve_vladeck's book as it explains how these procedural machinations (which also happened in TX abortion litigation) effectively allows for substantive changes in the law without accountability. Good outcome moving forward, but this is also part of "story" END
I'm reading the report by House Judiciary Committee Dems on the "whistleblowers" that Jim Jordan has brought in for his weaponization committee. HOO BOY. Jim does NOT want you to read this report, because it pre bunks a lot of his best material. So read it int.nyt.com/data/documentt…
This is the position of one of his *star witnesses*. 🤦🏾♀️Please bookmark this for when the GOP MAGAs claim that Democrats want to "defund the police." This guy...literally wants to defund the police
The other star witness. Who literally have no firsthand knowledge of what they are testifying to. Remember when Republicans were screaming "hEaRsAY!!!" all the time during the January 6 hearings? 😂
The FBI has a problem, and it’s coming from inside the house: Senior FBI officials resisted executing a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago and even wanted to shut down the case washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
Ummmmm
This is the same guy who asserted falsely after Jan. 6 that the FBI had no advance info that there could be violence ⬇️
This woe-is-me sob story by @dc_walter in @pawprinceton of the plight of conservatives at [checks notes] PRINCETON is…hoo boy. 🤦🏽♀️ (It wasn’t on my radar until my son showed it to me and asked, “Is this a serious article?”) Just a few highlights: paw.princeton.edu/article/crashi…
Article laments the fact that starting in 1964, “the political makeup of Princeton’s student body began to veer leftward.” Yeah, that pesky Civil Rights Act ruined everything for conservatives…tough times 2/
Several pages spent lamenting the loss of “aesthetic conservatism,” a.k.a. “natty suits, sipping dark spirits, and chomping fat cigars.” (For real, this complaint surfaced several times) 3/
Remember that time at band camp when David Duke endorsed Trump and Trump pretended he had no idea who David Duke was and then everyone just ignored it and elected him president? npr.org/sections/thetw…
And remember that time at band camp when Trump praised the “fine people on both sides” in Charlottesville even though the other dude were Nazis and white supremacists but everyone made excuses for what he “really” meant? washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/…
And remember that time at band camp when Chris Wallace asked Trump if he wanted to condemn the Proud Boys and he told them to “stand back and stand by” and a couple of months later they tried to overthrow the government? apnews.com/article/electi…