Talk:Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citations to add

I plan on adding the following citations:

• Nguyen, Thai-Huy1, and Marybeth1 Gasman. "Activism, Identity and Service: The Influence of the Asian American Movement on the Educational Experiences of College Students." History of Education44.3 (2015): 339-54. Eue. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
• Wu, J. Y. S. & Chen, T..Asian American Studies Now: A Critical Reader. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2010. Project MUSE.
• "Asian-American groups challenge racial preferences in higher education". Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-10-26.
• Morris, Catherine. "Asian American Groups File Federal Complaint Against Harvard." Diverse: Issues in Higher Education 32.9 (2015): 8. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
• "Asian-American groups challenge racial preferences in higher education". Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-10-26.
• Times, Los Angeles. "Chinese social media platform plays a role in U.S. rallies for NYPD officer". latimes.com. Retrieved 2016-10-26.
• Xu, Qiong, and Richard Mocarski. "A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Domestic American and International Chinese Students' Social Media Usage." Journal of International Students 4.4 (2014): 374-88.ERIC. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.M.nie (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Update needed

This article states that the Supreme Court 'will likely issue a ruling by June 2016.' Did they do so, and if so what was the outcome? The article needs to be updated to explain what happened with this complaint. Robofish (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I added the following information on July 9, 2018:

Harvard filed a motion in court to halt the case until the Supreme Court clarified relevant law in Fisher v. University of Texas (2013) (known as Fisher I) for the second time. The Supreme Court agreed to hear Fisher again and subsequently issued its decision in Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) (known as Fisher II) on June 23, 2016.

From my understanding, the Supreme Court was "likely to issue a ruling by June 2016" in the Fisher case (which they did). Not in this case (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Broader article

I'm pretty certain there's an article waiting to be written on the history of Harvard admissions, of which this would be a part. EEng 13:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

---

2015 federal complaints against Harvard University's alleged discriminatory admission practices → Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard – The lawsuit is continuing and attracts national attention, whereas the complaint has partly ended and the other part is not attracting attention. The lawsuit has 12 times the number of search results on Google compared to the current title. Croissant33 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Support consise and more appropriate giving ongoing litigation. buidhe 04:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UNC case page

After Justice Jackson was confirmed, the Supreme Court unconsolidated the Harvard and UNC cases, because she is recused in the former and not the latter. Based on prior Supreme Court practice (see Chiafalo v. Washington, where Justice Sotomayor was recused in one of two companion cases), it's likely the UNC case will become the new lead case. Currently, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina redirects to this page, but I think that is no longer tenable. I propose two options:

1. Move this page to "Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina", and add more content about the difference between the two cases. Redirect "Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College" to that page.
2. Given the important differences between the Harvard and UNC cases and now that they're unconsolidated, I can make a new page for the UNC case and leave this one mostly unchanged.

I'm open to other suggestions if anyone has some. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 20:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd still wait to see what happens when orals are handled, that would give an indication if they were going to rule on these distinctly or not. --Masem (t) 00:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish: I fully support starting a new article for Students for Fair Admissions v. University of NC, et al. In the meantime, I've added its name and noted that the cases were re-separated here and here. Despite having done that, what does everyone think about removing the entire paragraph about the consolidation (and now un-consolidation) from the lead? It seems unnecessary to include at this point, but I didn't want to excise it without discussion. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 15:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Given that both cases seek to have a similar result (overturning Grutter), I expect that the decisions are going to be closely tied together. If they end up being very distinct, then yes, we can separate them, but the way we've got the Chiafalo case worked out. Given how little I can find on the UNC case, but nearly all starting from the Harvard case, I think the UNC case is almost a footnote to this one. --Masem (t) 16:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a glorious topic to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.176.217 (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Two cases !!

Guys, there are two cases combined in one. The Holding: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 6–40. !! And the judgement: The judgments of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and of the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina are reversed. M.Karelin (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, see the above merger proposal. Until we have consensus for that merge, we're treating these as separate, but we'll fix that if/when the merge occurs. Masem (t) 00:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote above - there was only one opinion of the court !! Only one. Those two cases were combined into one case. M.Karelin (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Which is very strong reason to merge, but we do want to work on consensus here and not rush that merge. Masem (t) 01:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Oral bench decision readings

Two of the justices took the unusual step of reading their decisions out loud from the bench. Since it's so rare, should it be mentioned in the article

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-justices-thomas-sotomayor-read-affirmative-action-opinions-bench-rare-move — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.15.3 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that Fox News is not reliable for politics, but I am certain other sources noted this. However, bench readings of non-majority opinions are not that rare. Masem (t) 20:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there anything politically controversial about noting that two justices read their opinions from the bench? If not, then any mainstream media source, whether it be CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News, is fine. 152.130.15.5 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

How many previous decision were overruled ?

I guess at least two previous decisions - Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger - were overruled. But I don't know why we did not mention it in the article. Why ? M.Karelin (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Does the Syllabus list them as being overruled? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The Court opinion (as written by Roberts) didn't explicitly overrule its prior precedent. Edge3 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Which is why we should not state that until legal experts have a chance to determine if that's really the case. (But not immediate news reports).

If the legal side of things considers them overturned, then we should mark that. There are many cases that the majority opinion does not explicitly overturn a previous case but which the legal world considers overturned. (infamously, Korematsu v. United States until the court specifically said that it was overturned in Trump v. Hawaii) Masem (t) 04:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Justice Thomas is a legal expert I guess, he said that at least Grutter is, for all intents and purposes, overruled." This is on Page 58 of his concurrence; which is Page 106 on the PDF file. M.Karelin (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Justice Sotomayor: "As JUSTICE THOMAS puts it, “Grutter is, for all intents and purposes, overruled.” Ante, at 58." Thus, even Sotomayor agreed that Grutter is overruled. M.Karelin (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I scanned the case quickly. Didn't Thomas explicitly say "Grutter is overruled, for all intents and purposes" ... or some such? 32.209.69.132 (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thomas states: "The Court’s opinion rightly makes clear that Grutter is, for all intents and purposes, overruled." This is on Page 58 of his concurrence; which is Page 106 on the PDF file. 32.209.69.132 (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That was just Thomas writing a concurrence. The Court's opinion, written by Roberts, doesn't explicitly overrule Grutter. Edge3 (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

So what ?? See Masem's comment above. M.Karelin (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Grutter is overruled, because the number one question in the front of the Court was this one: Should this Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, and holds that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions. Obviously, the Court said "yes". M.Karelin (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The court did not explicitly say yes. That's what we need to work from. Compare the case to Dobbs where Roe is explicitly overruled in the holding (see [1]) Masem (t) 12:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in some context, the intro paragraph of this very article states that: (1) this is a "landmark decision"; and (2) "the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)". 32.209.69.132 (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Conservative composition of the Supreme Court

Would it be important to mention that the Justices form a conservative supermajority? Other sources have talked about it as well. Vacosea (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that included the fact in the lead that there was a conservative supermajority. I think the lead only needs to mention the vote and not the ideological composition of the court, which can be included in the body. I am unable to find any landmark SCOTUS decisions that mention ideological leanings of the Justices in the lead of the article. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Racial support for affirmative action

There is no evidence provided for the stated claim that whites and Asians oppose affirmative action, Blacks support it and Hispanics support it to a mixed degree. While you could assume this in theory in line with how much they benefit or disbenefit, in fact most polls show Asians are at most ambivalent about affirmative action. This claim about the general population may be the result of bias because there are Asian American interest groups drawing on the direct experience of Asian Americans and they have been used as plaintiffs in lawsuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.9.80.201 (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added [2] as a source. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

University reaction

Can this be included in the article's Reaction section?

"Stacy Hawkins, vice dean and professor at Rutgers Law School, said that despite the ruling, colleges and universities can continue to employ "race-neutral" means to promote diversity, such as increased consideration of socioeconomic status, which is correlated with race and ethnicity, and targeting certain schools for recruitment, since American high schools continue to be somewhat segregated. Institutions in California and Florida have already adopted such methods, because they are not allowed to consider race and ethnicity for admissions under their respective state law."[3]

Vacosea (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. Reywas92^Talk 13:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina into this article. After the Supreme Court un-consolidated the cases, consensus was reached at #UNC case page nearly a year ago to split into two separate articles. However, looking at the Court's opinion, it is clear that the cases were decided together, and the ensuing media coverage addresses both cases. Edge3 (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. CarpCharacin (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I earlier made this comment at the UNC page, and as neither was a per curium of the other, we should consider these as consolidated for purposes of organization. Masem (t) 19:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; a merger would be appropriate. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Support; merge. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Support per nomination. Vyvagaba (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Support. I also think the title should be changed back to "Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College" or "Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College". The Bakke article is titled "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke", not "University of California v. Bakke". – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 21:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

We try to use common names for article titles (eg like West Virginia v. EPA, though spell it out clearly in lede. The Bakke one should be moved. Masem (t) 23:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Query Would the title of this article need to be changed or updated if the two articles were merged? If so, what would be the new title? ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

No. But the lede should state both case names immediately, sine we will redirect from that title, and the infobox to include both cases (with special note on Jacksn's recusal) Masem (t) 21:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Even though the cases are very similar, since Justice Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case, it was 6-2 where the UNC case was 6-3. Both case articles should reference each other. I think we have enough disk space for both. --rogerd (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The decisions overlap which is the problem. We can easily account for Jackson's recusal with a merged article as its more a footnote to the overall aspects. Additionally, RSes are treating the cases as the same. Masem (t) 00:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing here like "cases". They were combined into one, and there is only one Opinion of the court, and one Held !! M.Karelin (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Support - There was only one opinion of the court !! Only one. Those two cases were combined. I wonder how it is possible to have another opinion about this ?? M.Karelin (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Even in other cases where cases were consolidated, there are separate articles, although the history after consolidation is mostly in the main case (e.g. Obergefell v. Hodges, Bourke v. Beshear, DeBoer v. Snyder, Tanco v. Haslam). In this case, one should have most of the Supreme Court proceedings, while the other only has events pertaining to it only while linking to the main article for the Supreme Court part. --09241EDDF35891FF (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

As you mentioned above, we always had one article even if cases were consolidated (examples are mentioned above). I see no reason not to do it here (we just can mention justice Jackson's situation in the article.). M.Karelin (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Support: The Court consolidated the cases. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2791, *316 (noting that the case was decided "[t]ogether with No. 21-707, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al., on certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.). Joesom333 (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverse merge. It should be the other way around, since Jackson participated in the UNC case but not the Harvard case. Therefore the UNC article should be the main article and the Harvard article merged into it. 18.29.64.10 (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Harvard is listed as the deciding case here (eg see : [4]) So this would not be proper to treat UNC first. Masem (t) 02:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Support: The cases have been decided together. The article on the North Carolina case contains only a couple of paragraphs. Vacosea (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Just as we cover Doe v. Bolton in its own article aside from Roe v. Wade, it makes sense to cover these separately. There are separate case histories and separate facts, and it makes sense to consider them in their own articles. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, was published in a separate decision from Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, so it is not a relevant comparison. SilverLocust (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Support. There is not enough different to say about the UNC case to merit a separate article. The Court did not apply a different rule since both are subject to Title VI when receiving federal funds. SilverLocust (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose - There is precedent for Supreme Court cases being decided as one opinion but having separate articles (see Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). The Harvard and UNC cases are also appropriately separated because the vote was different (Justice Jackson recused in the Harvard case but not the UNC case), and there is significant media coverage of both cases separately. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

A question - did you notice that two not consolidated cases combined into one article - Biden v. Nebraska ? Two different opinions of the Court delivered by different Justices (Roberts and Alito), we see it in one article (see Department of Education v. Brown). And we still arguing should here those two cases be merged into one ???M.Karelin (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Support - this SCOTUS decision will be looked at for decades no matter whether it stands for 50 years or is overturned in 10. The wikipedia page should be clear to make it easy for future readers by consolidating them. 104.54.198.40 (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• That would be no problem if they were left as two articles, because each article would have a link to the other in the opening paragraph, or maybe even a hatnote. --rogerd (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment There are times it makes sense that we combine articles on separate cases that are consolidated or decided upon at the same time, and that is typically when the underlying facts of the cases all stem from the same basic action. A good example is West Virginia v. EPA, which is really a consolidation of four separate cases; however, they all stem from the same basic legal history so it makes sense to discuss as a whole. In contrast, using Bostock above, while it was a consolidation of three cases, none of them stemmed from the same laws or legal actions, and because their procedural histories are so different, it makes sense they are split. Same with Obergefell as mentioned above. To that end, these two cases while separate legal histories, are clearly part of the same effort by the SFFA to challenge AA in college admissions, and thus inexorably linked together. So handling these together aligns with the same reasoning we did West Virgina. --Masem (t) 13:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - This would be inconsistent with other court cases. A number of cases have separate articles despite being decided together. PoliticalWizard55 (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge These cases decided together can absolutely be covered in one article. Other consolidated cases having separate articles has little bearing on whether these need to – the background, arguments, single opinion, and impacts substantially overlap and there is no inherent need to split when there is simply not enough different to say. Reywas92^Talk 13:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Support - the cases were consolidated and only split on the docket to accommodate Justice Jackson's recusal in the Harvard case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.146 (talk • contribs) 12:49, July 3, 2023 (UTC)

Support per the reasoning given above by User:Masem Red Slapper (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternative names of this article

Alternative names of this article

• 2015 Federal Complaint Against Harvard University by Asian American Coalition
• 2015 Federal Complaint Against Harvard University

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liao (talk • contribs) 06:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)