Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Roberts's Revisions: A Narratological Reading Of The Affirmative Action Cases, Angela Onwuachi-Willig
Roberts's Revisions: A Narratological Reading Of The Affirmative Action Cases, Angela Onwuachi-Willig
Faculty Scholarship
In a seminal article published nearly twenty years ago in the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, Professor Peter Brooks posed a critical yet underexplored question: "Does the [flaw [n]eed a [n]arratology?"5 In essence, he asked whether law as a field should have a framework for deconstructing and understanding how and why a legal opinion, including the events that the opinion is centered on, has been crafted and presented in a particular way.6 After highlighting that "how a story is told can make a difference in legal outcomes," Brooks encouraged legal actors to "talk narrative talk" …
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 …
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.
Brief Of Legal Scholars Defending Race-Conscious Admissions As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Sffa V. Harvard (20-1199) And Sffa V. University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill (21-707), Jonathan Feingold, Vinay Harpalani
Brief Of Legal Scholars Defending Race-Conscious Admissions As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Sffa V. Harvard (20-1199) And Sffa V. University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill (21-707), Jonathan Feingold, Vinay Harpalani
Faculty Scholarship
Legal Scholars Defending Race-Conscious Admissions uplift two underappreciated dynamics in the subject litigation challenging race-conscious admissions at Harvard and UNC:
1) Petitioner Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”) conflates two discrete claims against Harvard: (a) an intentional discrimination (or “negative action”) claim alleging that anti-Asian bias benefits white applicants and (b) a standard affirmative action challenge. SFFA blurs these claims to scapegoat and stigmatize affirmative action as a practice that pits Asian Americans against other students of color. Yet, SFFA belies its own narrative. According to SFFA’s own expert, anti-Asian bias—to the extent it exists—is caused by "colorblind" components of the …