The authors will join Reason on Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern to discuss the Supreme Court cases alleging unlawful discrimination against Asian Americans by Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
The link between Bostock v. Clayton County and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina
The Supreme Court grapples with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina.
The conservative majority on the Court is highly likely to rule against the two schools' use of racial preferences in admissions. But there are several different ways it could do so, which have different implications for future cases.
In the two cases, brought against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions argues that race-conscious admissions violate the Civil Rights Act
Pro-tip: If you are sued, and you expect your insurer to pick up the bill, it is a good idea to give them timely notice.
Understanding the jurisprudence of the conservative Supreme Court justice
The stay may signal that the federal appellate court will ultimately uphold the school's policy.
While some legal ethics experts suggest recusal would not be necessary, the SCOTUS nominee suggested she thinks otherwise.
The school board is fighting a federal judge’s ruling against a new admissions policy at Virginia's elite Thomas Jefferson High School.
Does her position on Harvard University's Board of Overseers require or counsel her recusal once she is confirmed?
The new admissions policy at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology did not explicitly discriminate based on race. But the court found it was intended to reduce the number of Asian students admitted, in order to increase the percentage of students from other groups.
This approach would avoid many of the flaws of traditional racial preferences. But it has some downsides of its own.
I argue the justices should crack down on the dubious "diversity" rationale for racial preferences, and curb discrimination against Asian-American applicants.
The article explains key issues in the case, and outlines what I think the Court should do.
The Supreme Court could decide the fate of affirmative action at public and private universities.
One involves racial preferences at Harvard, the other at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The Inconvenient Minority author and head of Color Us United says it's time for the country to become truly colorblind.
A divided panel grants a preliminary injunction against privileging relief applications based on the race or sex of the applicant.
A federal court denied the Fairfax County School Board's motion to dismiss the case.
A court issues a temporary restraining order, finding plaintiff's claim was likely to succeed on the merits.
Columbia University linguist John McWhorter on "anti-racism" as a new, misguided civic religion and his new book on curses, Nine Nasty Words.
Plus: Biden proposes a massive tax hike, scientists may have invented a successful malaria vaccine, and more...
The article shows how the left and right-wing versions of hostility to Asians have much in common.
In the name of helping racial minorities, officials are adopting a plan that would boost whites at the expense of Asian Americans.
The case could set an important precedent because it addresses facially neutral attempts at racial balancing, and because the school in question is currently over 70% Asian-American, and new policy seeks to reduce that percentage.
Compare: “With the exception of traditionally black law schools ..., the median black law school grade point average is at the 6.7th percentile of white law students.”
The absurdities that result from overreliance on semi-arbitrary race-based categories
Beneficial outcomes on at least three of four important California ballot measures: racial preferences, rent control, and protecting ride-share businesses and workers.
California is vastly further Left today than it was in 1996 when it generally banned such preferences—yet even California voters rejected a repeal of the ban, by a 56-44% margin.
These votes could have a big impact on the nation as a whole, as well as California.
A November ballot initiative would pit minority communities against each other.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 is now in the hands of the state Senate.
Race-based admissions will likely make a return visit to the Supreme Court.
The Health Sciences Center did not demonstrate that race-based affirmative action was necessary to achieve diversity.
Asians sue Harvard for discrimination in a case that may end college racial preferences.
Watch the Oxford-style debate hosted by the Soho Forum.
Her experience is a good example of why affirmative action policies are a bad idea.
What worked to limit Jewish enrollment 100 years ago has also worked to limit Asian enrollment.
"Evidence indicates that a driving factor in Harvard's admissions process... may be infected with racial bias against Asian Americans."
Reason editors discuss what anti-immigration fantasy looks like when translated into policy, and how education diversity goals lead to discrimination.
Caltech doesn't practice affirmative action, and its Asian American student population has increased. Harvard, on the other hand...
Attn, New York-area Reasonoids: Soho Forum debate is tonight in East Village.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks