implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences.”). Policymakers may act with an awareness of race — unaccompanied by a facial racial classification or a discriminatory purpose — without thereby subjecting the resultant policies to the rigors of strict constitutional scrutiny. The Supreme Court has specified that “race may be considered in certain circumstances and in a proper fashion .... [M]ere awareness of race in attempting to solve the problems facing inner cities does not doom that endeavor [to foster diversity and combat racial isolation] at the outset.” Tex. Dep’t Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmties. Project, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2507, 2525, 192 L.Ed.2d 514 (2015); see Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 646, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 789, 127 S.Ct.
holding that the race of the prosecutor is irrelevant holding that a violation of  1981 requires purposeful race discrimination holding that more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the race classification is required to make a prima facie race discrimination case recognizing that certain forms of race consciousness do not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination holding race and gender discrimination claim barred