|
|
|
|
|
|
by woodruffw
2801 days ago
|
|
|
> Since the number of admissions is fixed this reduces the odds of those who have a race that doesn’t match their preference. Sounds like a classic example of double effect[1] to me: Harvard intends a good end (alleviating historical injustices), applies a means that is not in-itself objectionable (AA), and does not intend the bad end (that some otherwise-qualified students have a reduced chance of getting in). That's a moral argument and not a legal one, but my intuition is that the intent of their admissions program and its necessary connection to the means (AA) will play a central role in their defense. Fisher II v. UT[2] was decided on similar grounds. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas_... |
|
|