: In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. (SFFA), the Supreme Court invalidated the race-based affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The SFFA majority held that the programs could not survive strict scrutiny: The universities’ interests in their affirmative action programs were not sufficiently compelling... The post SFFA and the Wrongs of Race-Based Statistical Discrimination appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. (SFFA), the Supreme Court invalidated the race-based affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The SFFA majority held that the programs could not survive strict scrutiny: The universities’ interests in their affirmative action programs were not sufficiently compelling... The post SFFA and the Wrong of Race-Based Statistical Discrimination appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: This column presents excerpts from a student paper, completed under the University of Toronto’s Community Research Partnership in Ethics program; the full paper will be published by the National Self-Represented Litigants Project later this year. Over the past 20 years, Alberta’s family justice system has distinguished itself from other jurisdictions by implementing mandatory forms of assistance. In 2005, the Alberta government launched mandatory meetings for SRLs in provincial court, pursuant to the Intake and Caseflow Management Regulation. [1] Building on this, and recognizing the inherent difficulties associated with an SRL’s journey through the family law system, the new Family Justice . . . [more] The post The Utility of Mandatory Assistance for Self-Represented Litigants in Alberta appeared first on Slaw