Just posted to SSRN "Disparate Treatment and Discriminatory Harm" forthcoming Legal Theory, with Lily Hu (Yale, Philosophy): It explores how one evaluates when a facially neutral law, which is adopted with an impermissible intent, produces a discriminatory effect. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
If you an alum of one of the schools that the Trump administration just made an "offer" for preferential treatment to, please sign this petition to indicate that as an alum you do not believe your school should trade its independence for special treatment. alumni.controlshift.app/petitions/tr...
I wrote an entry for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Algorithmic Fairness. It is here: plato.stanford.edu/entries/algo...
I found this a challenging but facinating project. Comments welcome.
Thank you Larry for writing such a lovely tribute. Dick was also a mentor, teacher and dear friend to me and I will miss him greatly. A great mind, a deep scholar, a charitable critic and a supportive and encouraging colleague.
To me, Dick Fallon was an important mentor, a trusted critic and a dear friend. I will miss him tremendously.
Key take away is that the Trump admin adopts a disparate impact theory in this finding while rejecting it elsewhere.
Terrific op-ed by @beidelson.bsky.social in @bostonglobe.com on the recent Trump ruling on antisemitism, which draws on our recent essay "Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism and Title VI" in the Harvard Law Review Forum: harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-13....
My essay with @beidelson.bsky.social in Harvard Law Review Forum went live on June 20 but today seems like an apt time to post it given reports that "Trump Administration Finds Harvard Violated Civil Rights Law" in NYT. Our take-away: campus anti-Zionist activity is unlikely to violate Title VI.
"Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and Title VI: A Guide for the Perplexed" is now out: tinyurl.com/3wpvbnzu
Thanks to HLR editors for fast & diligent editing and to the many who've engaged with us since we posted the draft. And of course to @hellmandeborah.bsky.social for another great collaboration.
Trump's renunciation of disparate impact is ironic: As @hellmandeborah.bsky.social and I explain in new paper, the disparate impact regulation is likely essential to any plausible Title VI theory re: campus antisemitism. Reporters should ask if they're making an exception!
ssrn.com/abstract=527...
@chronicle.com posted a Q&A @shenandoahkate.bsky.social where @beidelson.bsky.social and I discuss our recent article.
Full paper: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.....
Really thoughtful and lovely discussion of the judicial philosophy of the late Justice Souter by my colleague @cbarzun.bsky.social
www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/the-...
Important explainer on 70302 of "Big Beautiful Bill." Text: "No court of the United States may enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued..."
www.instagram.com/katiecouric/...
I agree! Well said.
Thanks Lee!
Thanks Joey.
Great summary in thread.
Yes, thanks to all those listed below and also to @richschragger.bsky.social, Kim Forde-Mazrui, and David Plunkett. And especially to @beidelson.bsky.social - always learn so much from our discussions.
Finally, we examine whether a university itself might be engaging in disparate treatment by being more solicitous of hostility directed at some groups than others. This claim is also likely weak as universities have good reason to tolerate political speech that offends.
Even if an environment is hostile to students of Jewish ancestry, a university would not be in violation of Title VI unless it were "deliberately indifferent" to this fact. Given the importance of debate to a university's mission, such a standard will be tough to meet.
Another way to frame a hostile environment claim is by focusing on whether the environment is experienced as hostile. However, this claim has a disparate impact quality and so will be difficult to make out -- especially given the adminstration's recent rejection of disparate impact.
2. While Title VI would prohibit a university being "deliberatiely indifferent" to a hostile environment for students of Jewish ancestry, that hostile environment most likely must arise from students treating other students different because they are Jews, not because they are Zionists.
A claim that a university has violated Title VI by tolerating anti-Zionist activities would face several significant hurdles.
1. Title VI doesn't cover religion and so antisemitism is covered only to the extent that anti-Jewish activities target people of Jewish ancestry (Jewishness as a race).
New to Bluesky, and posting a new paper: "Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and Title VI: A Guide for the Perplexed" -- with @beidelson.bsky.social.
Forthcoming in Harv. L. Rev. Forum in June. (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....).
A thread follows.
I've just joined BlueSky and need help from friends to gather followers. So @uvalaw.bsky.social, and other faculty and students, please share/follow. I write about discrimination law and its philosophical foundations and about bribery and corruption. Am interested in all things law and philosophy.