Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the time, nobody, including the authors, considered these laws to be a shield to protect white and Asian people from discrimination. This is very much false, and can be easily refuted by reading what the lawmakers were saying as the law was being passed. For example, here's from the DoJ's memorandum, as quoted on the Senate floor by Senator Clark: > "Finally, it has been asserted that title VII would impose a requ…
I respect your argument, and in my research, I found articles in support of your opinion. Nevertheless, when the Supreme Court adjudicated the question in United Steelworks v. Weber , 443 U.S. 193 (1979), this is what they said: """Our conclusion is further reinforced by examination of the language and legislative history of 703 (j) of Title VII. Opponents of Title VII raised two related arguments against the bill. F…
Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?
#311So it seems clear that nobody interprets title VII to mean discrimination is required (at best, allowed). Yet courts did seem to interpret title VI to mean just that and universities did discriminate. I wonder why? I feel like they were skirting the law to serve their own interests rather than trying to follow the law.