Court Rejects Lawsuit Claiming Police Discriminatorily Refused to Prosecute Rapist
The opinion was decided July 21, but was originally issued sealed; it was just unsealed today, in response to my motion to unseal.
The opinion was decided July 21, but was originally issued sealed; it was just unsealed today, in response to my motion to unseal.
Cato Institute immigration policy expert Alex Nowrasteh explains the close parallels between a policy most conservatives hate, and one most them reflexively support.
Policy analyst Justin Hayes summarizes the reasons why conservatives, progressives, and libertarians all have reason to support zoning reform.
A critical column by Jamelle Bouie prompts an extensive reply from Peter Canellos.
If activists want to help young people, they should start before college.
The article assesses strengths and weaknesses of the Court's decision, and what it will take to implement Chief Justice Roberts' admonition that "[e]liminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it."
Achieving this goal will require a lot more than banning racial preferences in college admissions. That includes some measures that will make the political right uncomfortable, as well as the left.
Plus: A listener question on the potential efficacy of congressional term limits.
They probably aren't illegal under current law. But they are nonetheless wrong for many of the same reasons as racial preferences.
"and the 'victimhood' of white women." "In support of its decision, the court ... pointed to defense counsel's description of Henderson as 'quite combative' on the witness stand and her description of Thompson as 'intimidated and emotional about the process.'"
"there would be a very strong case for prompt review by this Court."
A preliminary assessment of today's decisions. The majority rightly struck a blow against the use of racial preferences for purposes of advancing "diversity" in education. But there are some flaws in its reasoning.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that race-based affirmative action in college admissions violates the 14th Amendment.
Affirmative action becomes harder to defend when it entails discrimination against a variety of racial and ethnic minority groups.
The decision sets a dangerous precedent licensing the use of facially neutral policies to discriminate against minorities in various contexts.
Britain’s parliamentary democracy still transcends its monarchy.
My brief rejoinder to his response to my earlier post on this subject.
This piece is his response to my post criticizing of an article he wrote in the City Journal.
Some conservatives are in the awkward position of resisting both policies that reduce the role of race in allocating kidneys for transplant, and those that increase it. The better way to alleviate kidney shortages is to legalize organ markets.
"KCPD has continuously and repeatedly advised Plaintiff and his fellow officers that if they did not fulfill a 'ticket quota' then they would be kicked out of the unit," the complaint states.
This total is 2.5 times the state's annual budget.
"If I disagreed or offered another opinion, I was told I had cognitive dissonance," Josh Diemert says.
Douglass is best-known for his role in the abolitionist movement that helped end slavery. But much of his thought is also relevant to contemporary issues.
Plus: The editors field a listener question on college admissions and affirmative action.
A Princeton phsychologist suggests there is little evidence that corporate DEI programs do much to enhance diversity or inclusion.
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 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.
Do First Amendment claims about racial preferences hold water?
but because here the employer's (and union's) actions were basically just an incident of public criticism, they didn't qualify as hostile environment harassment (and the employee wasn't fired or demoted).
Critics allege, with some justice, that the Biden Administration is treating the former more favorably than the latter. If so, the right solution is to increase openness to Afghans and others fleeing war and repression, not bar more Ukrainians.
In a forceful concurring opinion, he argues the Supreme Court should overrule longstanding precedents denying many constitutional rights to residents of Puerto Rico and other "unincorporated" US territories. Gorsuch is absolutely right. But he would do well to cast the same critical gaze on the very similar precedents that exempt immigration restrictions from normal constitutional scrutiny.
interpreting "tend to" as reflecting the "statistics" about racial disparities in committing violent crimes.
The stay may signal that the federal appellate court will ultimately uphold the school's policy.
The school board is fighting a federal judge’s ruling against a new admissions policy at Virginia's elite Thomas Jefferson High School.
Recordings of recent interviews on these topics with T.J. O'Hara for the Deconstructed podcast, and Areva Martin on her talk show program, Special Report.
At her confirmation hearing for her current position on the court of appeals, KBJ testified that "race would be the kind of thing that would be inappropriate to inject in my evaluation of a case."
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.
It all started with a stolen PlayStation 5.
This approach would avoid many of the flaws of traditional racial preferences. But it has some downsides of its own.
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 thanksEvery 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 interestedSo 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 thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks