Based on the @theharvardcrimson.bsky.social's new reporting, Harvard's commitment to scrubbing discussion of race from the admissions process (left) appears to go far beyond what the conservative Supreme Court majority actually required in SFFA (right).

But the only mention of spitting in that part of the report is a complaint by a "Muslim woman who wears hijab." And there are no complaints of spitting anywhere else in the report either (though there's another mention of "spitting at pro-Palestinian demonstrators"). (2/3)

A stunning and telling error in the Title VI "notice of violation" against Harvard:

One of the document's most striking claims is that Harvard ignored "reports of Jewish and Israeli students being spit on in the face for wearing a yarmulke." This is repeated in their letter & in news coverage.(1/3)

Reading the Title VI "notice of violation" against Harvard makes stark that, to a large extent, the target is not antisemitism (not even trumped up claims of antisemitism) but protests. Where in these descriptions of alleged misconduct is the discrimination against Jewish (or Israeli) students?

There is much that's far-fetched and remarkable about Trump admin's new Title VI finding against Harvard. One example is this bizarre bit about why claims in Harvard's antisemitism report can be treated as evidence—despite the task force's explanation that it 'did not require ... evidence'! (1/2)

New paper: "Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and Title VI: A Guide for the Perplexed" — with @hellmandeborah.bsky.social.

Forthcoming in Harv L Rev Forum (ssrn.com/abstract=5271044)

This is one of the first systematic analyses of the wave of Title VI claims over campus antisemitism. A quick summary 🧵:

(Sidenote: one of our examples comes from the trial record and was cited by the Court itself to illustrate what is permissible—but this was obscured by the opinion's seemingly inadvertent citation to sealed material, until we alerted the Court and it revised the opinion a few months ago.) 3/

5) Finally, the focus is on cases, but pretty much everything works for U.S. Code provisions too, sourced from the U.S. House OLRC. The complex indentation is preserved (in the app, in PDFs saved from the app, and in Word export) and cross-references are linked within the app. 10/n

4) You can save any representation of a case as a PDF, copy a link and citation, or send it directly to a system service like Messages or Mail. And you can instantly export cases to Word for editing, with logical styles applied, real Word footnotes, and no crazy formatting. 9/n

3) Meanwhile, any web-based (Google Scholar or Caselaw Access) representation of the case will be reformatted & processed to remove junk ("L.Ed.2d," etc.), add interactive footnotes, nice justification, etc., and enable in-app links to other cases (or statutes in U.S.C). 8/n

2) For any case that is published in the US Reports, the app will also grab that PDF from the Library of Congress, crop it, and generate a navigation menu for opinions in the case. The PDF will take advantage of the screen real estate you give it. (Same for SCOTUS slip opinions.) 7/n

1) Press control + space from anywhere to open a unified, Spotlight-style search field, and get results sourced from Google Scholar, the Caselaw Access Project, the SCOTUS website, and more. (Or select text in a webpage or document and invoke Case Viewer as a macOS service.) 6/n