William Baude Examines Supreme Court Precedent on Affirmative Action

What’s at Stake in the Harvard Lawsuit? Decades of Debate Over Race in Admissions

“The Supreme Court has been vague about what is O.K.,” William Baude, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said. “It seems like they say it’s O.K. as long as it’s not too much or too blatant. And then the other problem is that the schools have been very secretive about exactly what they do. Which means we don’t know what the law exactly is, and we don’t know whether anybody is obeying.”

Legal experts say the Harvard case could be a fact-based trial, specific to one university. But if it is appealed, the Supreme Court could have a chance to revisit the law on affirmative action. That is the game plan of the plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions, a group formed by a conservative activist against affirmative action, Edward Blum. Mr. Blum has recruited for the group nearly two-dozen Asian-American students who were rejected by Harvard.

“It’s important to recognize that the fate of affirmative action doctrine and Harvard don’t necessarily go in the same direction,” Professor Baude said. “Affirmative action could stay the same even if Harvard loses. The challengers have both goals. They both think that what’s happening at Harvard is wrong, and they think the whole regime is wrong, and they’d like to use this case to prove it.”

Read more at The New York Times