Red Mosquito

--- wrote:with luck this ruling will introduce an environment with standards so ambiguous that litigiously ambitious humans of all races will be able to sue universities into penury and oblivion

elliseamos wrote:

96583UP wrote:such a complex topic

Schools will just say the decision to accept one kid over another was based on another reason... it's kind of silly that it had to be fought over.

Bi_3 wrote:Also if you read analysis of it you’ll see Gorsuch cited Title 6, which means this could be the basis for a whole-of-government ruling in the future

Green Habit wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Also if you read analysis of it you’ll see Gorsuch cited Title 6, which means this could be the basis for a whole-of-government ruling in the future

This is the really big one. And given that he tied his Bostock opinion in with this case, Title VII could come into play against the private sector as well. This war is only getting started.

elliseamos wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Also if you read analysis of it you’ll see Gorsuch cited Title 6, which means this could be the basis for a whole-of-government ruling in the future

This is the really big one. And given that he tied his Bostock opinion in with this case, Title VII could come into play against the private sector as well. This war is only getting started.

Care to explain it?

And if you can, do so as if I've been watching Bob's Burgers for a couple hours.

Neil Gorsuch wrote:Title VI prohibits a recipient of federal funds from intentionally treating any individual worse even in part because of his race, color, or national origin and without regard to any other reason or motive the recipient might assert. Without question, Congress in 1964 could have taken the law in various directions. But to safeguard the civil rights of all Americans, Congress chose a simple and profound rule. One holding that a recipient of federal funds may never discriminate based on race, color, or national origin—period.

If this exposition of Title VI sounds familiar, it should. Just next door, in Title VII, Congress made it “unlawful...for an employer...to discriminate against any individual...because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Appreciating the breadth of this provision, just three years ago this Court read its essentially identical terms the same way. [See Bostock.] This Court has long recognized, too, that when Congress uses the same terms in the same statute, we should presume they “have the same meaning.” And that presumption surely makes sense here, for as Justice Stevens recognized years ago, “oth Title VI and Title VII” codify a categorical rule of “individual equality, without regard to race.”

simple schoolboy wrote:I don't think conservatives are going to like the end point if they start applying title VI aggressively through the lens of disparate impact.

Green Habit wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:I don't think conservatives are going to like the end point if they start applying title VI aggressively through the lens of disparate impact.

I dunno, I think the ones who really get riled up about wokeness would love to stick it to big corporations that have AA policies in place. That's in stark contrast to libertarians who would dislike this on pretty doctrinaire free market, freedom of contract grounds.