Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Race (3)
- Affirmative action (2)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Critical race theory (2)
- Equal protection (2)
-
- 2A (1)
- American (1)
- Antidiscrimination law (1)
- Book review (1)
- CRT (1)
- Diversity (1)
- Equal Protection Clause (1)
- Equality (1)
- Firearm fatalities (1)
- Firearms (1)
- Gender (1)
- Grutter v. Bollinger (1)
- Gun death (1)
- Gun violence (1)
- Higher education (1)
- Homicide (1)
- International tax (1)
- Justice in distribution (1)
- Labor policy (1)
- Labor regulation (1)
- Law (1)
- McCleskey v Kemp (1)
- Minimum tax (1)
- Nozick (1)
- Racial disparity (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Foreword: Finding Balance In The Fight Against Gun Violence, Michael Ulrich
Foreword: Finding Balance In The Fight Against Gun Violence, Michael Ulrich
Faculty Scholarship
The United States is distinct among high-income countries for its problem with gun violence, with Americans 25 times more likely to be killed by gun homicide than people in other high-income countries.1 Suicides make up a majority of annual gun deaths — though that gap is closing as homicides are on the rise — and the U.S. accounts for 35% of global firearm suicides despite making up only 4% of the world’s population.2 More concerning, gun deaths are only getting worse. In 2021, firearm fatalities approached 50,000, the highest we have seen in at least 40 years.3 …
Beyond More Accurate Algorithms: Takeaways From Mccleskey Revisited, Ngozi Okidegbe
Beyond More Accurate Algorithms: Takeaways From Mccleskey Revisited, Ngozi Okidegbe
Faculty Scholarship
McCleskey v. Kemp1 operates as a barrier to using the Equal Protection Clause to achieve racial justice in criminal administration.2 By restricting the use of statistical evidence in equal protection challenges, McCleskey stifled the power of the discriminatory intent doctrine to combat the colorblind racism emanating from facially neutral criminal law statutes and governmental actions.3 But what if McCleskey had been decided differently? Given that Washington v. Davis4 held that the challenged law or governmental action had to be “traced to a discriminatory racial purpose,”5 could McCleskey have articulated an approach to equal protection doctrine …
Two Approaches To Equality, With Implications For Grutter, Keith N. Hylton
Two Approaches To Equality, With Implications For Grutter, Keith N. Hylton
Faculty Scholarship
The question “what is equality?”, applied to the distribution of resources across races, suggests the following answer: when there appears to be no need for a policy that focuses on improving the welfare of one race relative to another. There is another way to approach the same question: equality is when traditionally-recognized paths to advancement do not give preference to or disadvantage an individual because of his race. Notice the difference here is between end-state and process-based notions of equality, a distinction Nozick emphasized in his examination of justice in distribution. Nozick rejected end-state theories of justice in distribution. I …
Surrey's Silence: Subpart F And The Swiss Subsidiary Tax That Never Was, Steven Dean
Surrey's Silence: Subpart F And The Swiss Subsidiary Tax That Never Was, Steven Dean
Faculty Scholarship
Was Stanley Surrey racist? Was he a coward for not speaking as plainly about the Swiss tax haven problem in public as the Surrey Papers reveal his team did in private? In the broad sweep of history Surrey’s silence may have mattered a great deal or it may have mattered very little. The quiet aspect of the Liberia problem that it highlights undoubtedly does. Exploiting the public’s misunderstanding of the term tax haven as Surrey quickly learned to do has become second nature to scholars and policymakers alike. No less powerful than the loud aspect of the Liberia problem, the …
Affirmative Action After Sffa, Jonathan Feingold
Affirmative Action After Sffa, Jonathan Feingold
Faculty Scholarship
In SFFA v. Harvard (SFFA), the Supreme Court further restricted a university’s right to consider the racial identity of individual applicants during admissions. The ruling has spawned considerable confusion regarding a university’s ongoing ability to pursue racial diversity, racial inclusion, and other equality-oriented goals—whether through “raceconscious” or “race-neutral” means. To assist institutions attempting to navigate the ruling, this article outlines a set of key legal rights and responsibilities that universities continue to possess following SFFA.
Ambivalent Advocates: Why Elite Universities Compromised The Case For Affirmative Action, Jonathan Feingold
Ambivalent Advocates: Why Elite Universities Compromised The Case For Affirmative Action, Jonathan Feingold
Faculty Scholarship
“The end of affirmative action.” The headline is near. When it arrives, scholars will explain that a controversial set of policies could not withstand unfriendly doctrine and less friendly Justices. This story is not wrong. But it is incomplete. Critically, this account masks an underappreciated source of affirmative action’s enduring instability: elite universities, affirmative action’s formal champions, have always been ambivalent advocates.
Elite universities are uniquely positioned to shape legal and lay opinions about affirmative action. They are formal defendants in affirmative action litigation and objects of public obsession. And yet, schools like Harvard and the University of North Carolina—embroiled …