Supreme Court Hearing on the Harvard Racial Discrimination Case

Supreme Court Hearing on the Harvard Racial Discrimination Case

The Students for Fair Admission led by Edward Blum is suing Harvard university. The organization is accusing Harvard of its unfair admission procedures that prefer other racial minorities to Harvard students. The Asian American Coalition for Education (AACE) has taken up the case. Yukong Chang, stated that the Supreme court should issue a total ban on racial discrimination in college admissions. Blum cites that Harvard is involved in a quota system that discriminates against the Asian community. The university, as the defendant, would, however, argues that in 2018, the Asian group was 22.2% of the admitted class. Harvard could also add that the supreme court has allowed the institutions to use race as one of the factors to consider when accepting students. In addition to this, Harvard could also give a guideline into its holistic approach to admitting students. As a lawyer who draws upon legal realism and critical legal theory, these are the arguments I could make for the case.

The primary proponent of Legal Realism had a belief that the subconscious factors influence the judgment, but still, this predicted the decisions impossible. Legal realism suggests that some social forces affect the decision making of the judge. The Harvard case can be influenced by many external factors like the trend of admissions in the university. As a lawyer, I would focus on the economic and social background of students who have been admitted to the university. This would also include a look at the context of the judge on the case. According to legal realism, the presentation of facts on the social status of students could influence the decision of the judge. In addition to this, the fact that the university had admitted 22.2% of the Asian community the previous year would also be presented so that it can shine more light on the case.

According to Legal realism, the law is defined as what the judge and the lawyers do in the courtroom. There is no external law that influences the decision-making process of the judge. The proponents of Legal Realism hold the view that the judge has to discern which decision is fair after listening to facts from the defendant and plaintiff. After determining this decision, he then seeks legal advice and justification. On this stand, I would present the facts on how Harvard university had been admitting the students using the holistic review. In addition to this, the information on how the university considers race in its admission. These races include the admission of blacks, Latino, and white. In conclusion, as a lawyer, I would present on the facts about how the parties suing Harvard like The Students for Fair Admission have different agendas. According to Hasan Minhaj, Edward Blum’s main agenda was to end the Affirmative Action.

On the other hand, the critical legal theory holds on to the belief that there is no external truth that affects the decision-making process in a courtroom. The proponents of this theory have borrowed from Marx’s whose central tenant is that the law is centered on benefiting those in power. As a lawyer, I would present the information on how those pretending to fight for the Asian community are not doing it. These are the kinds of Edward Blum, who are basically fighting to do away with the Affirmative Action in the United States. This revelation would help in the unveiling of the motifs behind suing Harvard University. The judge would, in turn, use this information to clearly judge the truth of both the plaintiff and defendant sides. As a result, the law would not favor those in power but those who are right in their dealings.

Critical Legal Theory has a principle of interdependency that states that the decisions made by the judges and lawmakers are not determined by the policies of justice and legal rules.  This means that the judges do not necessarily depend on the law in its decision making. In connection to this, a presentation of the different ways in which Harvard university and the plaintiffs carry out their activities would, therefore, be of great importance to the case. As a lawyer, I would present the moral status of both the plaintiff and the defendant to the court.

In conclusion, legal realism and the critical legal theory are similar in that they do not present the law as a sacrosanct way in the courtroom. Proponents of Legal realism believe that judgment is affected by subconscious factors. This would make me a lawyer to present the economic and backgrounds of the students admitted to Harvard. According to the critical legal theory, I would give the underlying factors that motivate the plaintiff to sue Harvard. These factors are like the abolishment of affirmative action that drives Edward Blum to sue institutions.