The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
SCOTUS Punts the Harvard Affirmative Action Case To The Acting SG
If the SG drags her feet, she can postpone oral arguments until the October 2022 term
On Monday, the Court requested the views of the Acting Solicitor General in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. This case challenges the University's affirmative action policy. Had the Court granted the case this month, it likely would have been argued in November or December 2021. But now, it is impossible for the case to be heard during the October 2021 term.
Now, the ball is in the SG's Court. She can sit on this request for an indeterminate about of time. There is no time frame in which she is required to reply. If the SG files a brief by the end of December, the Court could grant the case in January, and hear arguments in April. But if the SG files the brief in late January, a cert grant would not be timely enough for an April argument under the normal course. Instead, the case would be argued during the October 2022 term, with a decision by June 2023. In theory at least, the SG can control the fate of the decision. Who knows what the world will look like at that point.
Now the Roberts Court doesn't care what the Biden Administration thinks about affirmative action. We know the answer. This CVSG is a dilatory tactic from the Roberts Court. Here, the CVSG represents yet another form of a punt. (I wrote about 4 types of punts here). OT 2021 is already full with abortion and the Second Amendment. It would be too hectic to add affirmative action on top of that mess.
Does the Biden Administration tempt fate, and wait till January to file a brief? Acting SG Prelogar already burned some credibility with the Court over her dilatory filing in Terry. I do not think a dilatory CVSG brief in the Harvard case, designed to delay hearing the matter, would be well received. We know the Court can move quickly when it wants to. I suspect the brief will be filed, per custom, by December 2021.
By the way, we still do not have a Solicitor General nominee.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Asians are supposed to be smart. Why do they keep voting for the Democrat Party? I bet the nominee for SG will not come from a successful minority.
Bird Brained Behar's Benighted Bigotry!
That's unnecessary, and detracts from this blog.
You made a common error and posted this as a reply to me rather than Bigoted Bird Behar.
Muting Behar (and Kirkland for that matter) has improved my reading experience considerably. Why comment in their posts? I suspect even negative responses fuel their motivation to continue their nonsense, why encourage them?
People like Behar are going to post/rant regardless so they should be met with universal mocking.
After a while, it is not worth the effort and only adds noise rater than signal
After a while, it is not worth the effort and only adds noise rather than signal.
As we see below, this entire thread of comments is devoid of information.
You answered your own question. They keep voting Democrat because they're smart. Unlike the folks I see at MAGA rallies.
All Democrat constituencies did great under Trump. Now they are suffering crime victimization, high prices, job killing policies, unlivable cities, immigrants replacing them at work, and in ethnic cleansing of their neighborhoods.
You forgot to mention dandruff, UFO space alien invasions, the common cold, demon possession, sex crazed alley cats, nausea, upset stomach, premature baldness and bratty neighborhood kids.
Hi, KryKry. Do have any substantive comment?
Mine is every bit as substantive as yours.
Your list is not limited to Democrat constituencies. Mine is.
Cuckoo Crazy Cockatoo!
You're funny.
This really isn't fair to Asian Americans and acts to allow a form of discrimination to continue.
CVSG = Call for the Views of the Solicitor General
Thanks apedad, I was wondering WTH that acronym was.
There is no question that Harvard has a variation of a quota system, very similar to the Uof Mich case in Grutter. See the district court finding of fact and Thomas footnote in grutter. (note that CA6 re wrote the finding of fact - de novo, to closely match bakke)
however, this case is somewhat dangerous to use as a vehicle to outlaw discrimination. Both the trial court and the court of appeals effectively held that there was no discrimination in the finding of facts. Not that the discrimination (oops - the diversity) was constitutional.
The SC has been very resistant to overturn erroneous findings of fact no matter how overt as evidenced by the holding in Grutter. As such, based on the erroneous finding of fact, the SC will likely rule in harvard's favor.
" There is no question that Harvard has a variation of a quota system, very similar to the Uof Mich case in Grutter. See the district court finding of fact "
" Both the trial court and the court of appeals effectively held that there was no discrimination in the finding of facts."
?
Queen - try reading the opinions
I was really curious about how many votes it takes to issue a CVSG, and per the below article, the number is 4. So if you assume all three liberal(ish) Justices concurred, then at least one of Roberts or Kavanaugh had to join as well. I think it’s a safe bet that Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Barrett had no interest.
The article’s also just an interesting read generally for anyone hoping to learn more about the CVSG process.
https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Millett_article.pdf
I don't think we know much about Barrett re affirmative action, do we?
No we don’t. But we can make an educated (no pun) guess.
The purpose of diversity as high value was to get around affirmative action problems. You aren't pushing quotas as amelioration of past or ongoing wrongs, but because diversity is so awesome-o.
Now it's starting to take it on the chin as functionally equivalent.
Note this is in the context of equity, where, rather than having to trace out cause and effect racist links, you just presume so as an outcomes analysis, then forge ahead with that as justification for action. Hiw wonderfully bypassing of due process. Yet that seems to help the Asian student's cause in this case.
Rats, I guess .
Hoisted by their own petard.
Few university administrators care much about ameliorating past racial misdeeds via their admissions/hiring policies. Rather, they push diversity because it's what their customers want. Young people love diverse settings and their parents don't want little Connor and Maddie to go out into an increasingly diverse world unprepared.
Where I adjunct admissions often sends parents of prospective students to sit in on a class and talk with me afterward. Many of them, in fact most, want to know if the school is diverse or not, they see it as a big plus if it iis.
If I met you are representing a school for my child, I would scratch it off the list.
Queenie, do you have a job and adjunct, or just adjunct? I am concerned about you. If you just adjunct, you would earn more with your time at McDonalds. I am also concerned that you are being used to fulfill multiple quotas of minorities that cannot compete on merit. I count 7. How many do you count?
Queenie. You should try to enumerate the benefits your school gets from each of the quotas you help fill. Then multiply each quota by $5000 as your share of the benefit. They should pay you an extra $35000 a year for all the quotas you fill.
One of my children played the race card, as I told her to. She got a full ride for a two year program, worth $150,000. That $35000 would be a bargain for your school.
Also, did all the losers on this blog get their 3 stimulus checks? If not, see this.
https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/get-my-payment
I know you are all Democrats, but do not leave money that belongs to you on the table.
Ignoramus' Insipid IRS Inquest!
"If I met you are representing a school"
Goober's Grammar Goof!
Fragment. See Warriners English Grammar and Composition, 8th grade edition.
Pitiful Parrot's Point!
CANCEL CULTURE ALERT!
"If I met you are representing a school for my child, I would scratch it off the list."
CANCEL CULTURE ALERT!
Would someone check on DaivdB to ensure he didn't bang his head when he swooned?
Hi, Dad. I support cancel culture. I want to purge all our institutions of Marxists.
Do they really care about that? Or is that the expected profession to be made in an Emperor's New Clothes sort of way?
"You care about diversity, right?"
"Yes, yes. I want my kid to go to a diverse school. That's also a great school for their subject, as a secondary desire."
They really care about it, and it's easy to see why. It's an increasingly diverse world, learning how to work with and for diverse clientele is increasingly important.
I agree. Your mediocre majority child will also shine compared to the quota people. Even if the quota people graduate, they will learn. The world does not have an affirmative action program. Obama learned that during his failed Presidency.
Mayor McNutty's Mumblings!
They care about a particular type of diversity ... let's call it phenotype diversity. No one cares about diversity of thought or socio-economic status.
The care about 'phenotype diversity' because they know their kid is going to have to deal with people of diverse phenotypes as customers, clients, colleagues, etc., and they want them to be prepared to do that successfully.
Why should that matter, if their kid is going to treat people in a non-discriminatory manner? It's not like you need to learn a new way of interacting with every new phenotype you encounter, ideally you should be treating them all the same!
Attitudes, customs, interests, experiences, etc., are often different in different 'phenotype groups'.
"Attitudes, customs, interests, experiences, etc., are often different in different ‘phenotype groups’"
But not always. Why not just ask about the attitudes, customs, interests, experiences, etc. directly?
Why risk ending up with a bunch of people who are different colors but share the same attitudes, interests, etc?
Perhaps you should help the parents out by volunteering some of the information, like "Not only do our students come in a wide variety of skin colors, but the diversity of attitudes, customs, interests, experiences is..."
I think that would be helpful.
" Why not just ask about the attitudes, customs, interests, experiences, etc. directly? "
That would be too laborious of a project.
"Why risk ending up with a bunch of people who are different colors but share the same attitudes, interests, etc?"
Not much risk of that.
Yes, it's too laborious to treat people according to the content of their character, while you can just look at them and see the color of their skin.
Queenie wants your child to learn and to speak Ebonics.
Addled Aerial Animal's Animosity!
Yo! Can ya say dat ahn Ebonics?
https://funtranslations.com/ebonics
Money is the sole remedy to discrimination. No laws, no programs, no indoctrination. None of those has ever worked.
I have said, would love it is a bakery refused to serve the gays. I would open a bakery across the street, with the sign, Gay Weddings are Fabulous. Make some money. Same thing in 1910. Except the lawyer passed discriminatory laws, and discrimination was enforced at the point of a gun. You cannot have a state with 1/3 black, and stay in business if you refuse their money.
"people of diverse phenotypes"
A black son of a doctor from San Francisco and a black son of a nurse's aid from Oakland have very little common.
Skin color does not define people. Sad you and these parents think so.
It really is stupefying the extent to which the progress toward achieving Dr. King's dream over the course of my lifetime is in the process of being flushed down the toilet in a few short years -- to the raucous applause of its former proponents.
King was, of course, a big proponent of affirmative action.
King, notoriously, announced an admirable principle people of good will of all races could embrace, and then abandoned it.
That's the ugly truth: His elevated reputation derives from a stance he turned his back on. He told us we should aim for a world where people's races wouldn't matter, and then, realizing that would not be achieved instantly, embraced racial preferences and quotas that would assure it never would be achieved.
"A black son of a doctor from San Francisco and a black son of a nurse’s aid from Oakland have very little common. "
More than you might think. For example, there's a 90% chance they both voted Democrat last November.
"Skin color does not define people. "
People with similar skin color often have similar experiences in our society and therefore there are significant differences in attitudes, customs, etc., between groups. Every one who works in a field where public opinion is important to divine knows this.
"For example, there’s a 90% chance they both voted Democrat last November."
You have actual statistics with cross tabs for the families of doctors and nurse's aids? Or are you just stereotyping based on skin color?
This is nonsense. They don't care about diversity; they care about the prestige of the university and the perceived value of the degree. If they care about "phenotype diversity," white and Asian applicants would be pounding on the doors to get into historically black colleges and universities. And black students would be trying to go anywhere but there.
There's also some real irony in making this comment in a post about Asian students suing because Harvard effectively limits the number of Asian applicants. It seems they actually want less exposure to other phenotypes.
Moreover, if exposure to different experiences were what students wanted, they'd be demanding that colleges report the economic backgrounds of their students. They'd also want diverse and robust political debate. That doesn't happen. To the contrary, schools/students are solidly left-leaning and everyone gets aflutter when the most highly connected children get into schools (because it helps raise the prestige).
"If they care about “phenotype diversity,” white and Asian applicants would be pounding on the doors to get into historically black colleges and universities. "
HBCUs are not very diverse.
"There’s also some real irony in making this comment in a post about Asian students suing because Harvard effectively limits the number of Asian applicants. "
No irony, parents realize that you're talking about going from vastly over-represented to less so with some groups. That still serves diversity.
"they care about the prestige of the university and the perceived value of the degree"
Well, sure, I didn't say they cared only about diversity, just that it was something they cared about.
Hang on now. You previously said:
It’s an increasingly diverse world, learning how to work with and for diverse clientele is increasingly important. and The care about ‘phenotype diversity’ because they know their kid is going to have to deal with people of diverse phenotypes as customers, clients, colleagues, etc., and they want them to be prepared to do that successfully.
But if that's what they want, then why not go go a campus where you maximize your exposure to another culture? Particularly since you seem to contend that minorities are underrepresented at universities? I mean, you presumably already know how to deal with your own culture, so why go where that's available? Why not go to where you maximize your exposure to something new, sort of like a language immersion program?
Answer - Because you're making this up as you go along to justify your ultimate goal of having a quota system, even if that means discriminating against Asian students.
No irony, parents realize that you’re talking about going from vastly over-represented to less so with some groups. That still serves diversity.
Okay, but then by that rationale and the rationale you gave earlier, why aren't parents demanding HBCUs increase their proportion of white, Asian, hispanic, or other minority groups? After all, "that still serves diversity."
The fact is, you're making it up as you go along. The actual application rates at these schools tell us what students/parents want, and it's not diversity for the sake of diversity. It's prestige and opportunity to get the best chance at a high-paying job.
You don't understand: The benefits of phenotype diversity are maximized at exactly the level where each particular phenotype is being admitted proportional to their percentage of the population. Purely by coincidence, of course!
I mean, it takes a 190 Asians to deliver the same phenotype diversity punch as just one Inuit. That's obvious!
Of course diversity concerns are going to focus on under-represented, not over-represented, groups.
See, you've just conceded my point, and you don't even realize it.
Your "diversity" is just a sham, all you're doing is implementing quotas to force duplicating the number of different groups in the general population. Nothing achieves your goal except all groups being "represented" in proportion.
Why would they have to go to college for that? There no black people in your local schools?
If your kids haven't learned it by 18, they're not going to learn it by 22.
https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/epscor/
"They really care about it, and it’s easy to see why. It’s an increasingly diverse world, learning how to work with and for diverse clientele is increasingly important."
If they really care about diversity, college is probably the last place they should go. Military Infantry, blue collar jobs, etc. have lots of diversity.
Well, of course they care about other things they hope to experience/get from college which they don't think they will in the military, blue collar jobs, etc.
If by "hope to experience/get," you mean increased likelihood of getting a solid white-collar job, yes. Honestly, parents would pay huge sums to send their kids to adult daycare if it gave their children the best chance of getting an upper-middle-class life. Frankly, that's not far from what a lot of college is.
Who do you think their "customers" are, exactly? And how do they know what they want?
People want lots of things. Sometimes those wants are illegal, like racial discrimination. White parents didn't want their kids going to public school with minority kids. They often got their preferences enshrined by the school district and state authorities.
Fight fiercely, Harvard
Fight, fight, fight!
Demonstrate to them our skill
Albeit they possess the might
Nonetheless we have the will
How we will celebrate our victory
We shall invite the whole team up for tea
(how jolly!)
Hurl that spheroid down the field, and
Fight, fight, fight!
/For once I'll correctly attribute a poem: This one is by Tom Lehrer
easy..if Harvard takes public monies it cannot have differing standards for applicants. Even if this leads to unequal results the govt is obliged to treat everyone equally...if you get a lower SAT score you dont' get in..doesn't matter where you come from or your skin color or religion...as long as the bar is the same for everyone..if you don't like it work to get your "tribe" higher scores...
Stop dumbing down American to ease your conscience libs
Is it possible that the Supreme Court simply wants the opinion of the United States on a question of federal law, and is not engaged in some sort of quasi-political machination?
SCOTUS is just a bunch of chicken shits
Theoretically, sure, they might have some abstract interest in that opinion.
Realistically? They're just kicking the can down the road.
The Patricia Millet article linked by hardreaders above suggests that the Supreme Court typically asks not about questions of federal law, or on the merits at all, but whether the SG does or does not recommend granting certiorari. And usually because the case may have an effect on some wider statutory scheme :
CVSGs are a unique feature of Supreme Court practice, and they underscore the special position of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court litigation. The Court is seeking the views of a non-party, not on the merits of the case, but on whether the Court should exercise its discretionary certiorari jurisdiction to hear the case at all
It's not easy to see how that would apply in this case. Perhaps it's Roberts firing a shot across the bows of the "conservativ-ish five."
"You may have the majority now, but I'm still the Chief and if you try to ignore me, I can still filibuster you, with the help of the three libs. Which I will always get. I don't want you to take this case, so I can make it a long hard slog for you. And I can do that in other cases too, if you try to push things. Remember I'm the Chief, godammit !"
I assume the Court's internal rules for things like CVSG's aren't statutory, as the branches are basically self-regulating on most matters.
So, if Roberts leans into this too hard, couldn't the Court's majority change the rules, so that it takes 5 votes to CVSG, not four? And it would be perfectly reasonable, given that it IS a dilatory tactic. Like granting certiori, you don't want a minority to be able to block action.
Diversity is meaningless. Merit, I.e being smart is what matters.
AA is just today’s preferred racism which is definitely preferential to blacks. Not “minorities “ since Asians are a minority
The other Democrat myth is that self esteem matters. Let's make bad under performers feel good about their failure. Intelligence is 100 times more powerful determinant of success than self esteem.
The case should be very easy to decide.
- Does affirmative action treat people differntly on the basis of race?
- Is race a bona fide qualification in admissions?