日批在线视频_内射毛片内射国产夫妻_亚洲三级小视频_在线观看亚洲大片短视频_女性向h片资源在线观看_亚洲最大网

US divided over college admissions policy

By LIA ZHU in San Francisco | CHINA DAILY | Updated: 2022-12-12 07:48
Share
Share - WeChat
Students rally outside the US Supreme Court in Washington on Oct 31 before hearings in two cases that could decide the future of affirmative action in college admissions. J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE/AP

Providing help

Affirmative action is a government policy designed to help minorities and disadvantaged groups find employment, gain admission to universities, and obtain housing.

Race-conscious policies aim to address discrimination that denies underrepresented students access to higher education.

Until the 1960s and 1970s, Harvard and UNC refused to admit large numbers of black students and other students of color. Both schools said affirmative action allows them to select a diverse student body to create an inclusive educational environment that benefits all students.

However, opponents of affirmative action targeted the universities, arguing that their programs violate equal protection principles and discriminate against Asian American students.

Students for Fair Admissions, or SFFA, a conservative group that brought both challenges to the Supreme Court, sued Harvard and UNC in 2014.

The group alleged that Harvard intentionally discriminated against Asian American applicants by holding them to a higher standard in undergraduate admissions and specifically limiting the number of Asian Americans it admits each year.

While Harvard is a private university, the plaintiff said the institution was violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits schools receiving federal funds from discriminating based on race.

In the UNC case, the group said the school policy is subject to the same law as well as the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, which covers state universities. It said the school discriminated against white and Asian applicants by giving preference to black, Hispanic and Native American students.

SSFA lawyer Patrick Strawbridge accused UNC of using race "behind opaque procedures" in awarding "mammoth racial preferences" to African Americans and Hispanics.

"A white, out-of-state male who had only a 10 percent chance of admission would have a 98 percent chance if UNC treated him as an African American, and a 69 percent chance if it treated him as a Hispanic," he said.

In contrast to Strawbridge's suggestion, US District Judge Loretta C. Biggs found that "the university continues to face challenges admitting and enrolling underrepresented minorities, particularly African American males, Hispanics and Native Americans".

In October last year, she ruled in favor of UNC, saying it had not shown illegal bias against white and Asian American students.

The university has been struggling to build a diverse student population. In a state that is 21 percent black, just 8 percent of the undergraduate student population is African American.

Biggs wrote in her ruling, "Ensuring that our public institutions of higher learning are open and available to all segments of our citizenry (is) an institutional obligation."

SSFA filed an appeal at an appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, and at the Supreme Court. In January, the Supreme Court decided to hear the challenge even though the appeals court has not yet ruled.

The lawsuit brought against Harvard by SSFA centers on the treatment of Asian American students who have, on average, better standardized test scores and grades than any other ethnic group, including whites.

Harvard admissions consider a student's academic, extracurricular, athletic and personal ratings. The latter category attempts to assess how an applicant impacts people around him or her and the contributions the student might make.

SFFA accused Harvard of discriminating against Asian American students by using a subjective standard to gauge traits such as likability, courage and kindness.

In 2019, the district court ruled in favor of Harvard, finding that it did not discriminate against Asian Americans. In November 2020, an appellate court affirmed the district court decision, ruling that it did "not clearly err in finding that Harvard did not intentionally discriminate against Asian Americans".

Harvard denied the accusation, saying that Asian American enrollments have consistently risen. The university's lead lawyer Seth Waxman said during the Supreme Court argument that if the school abandoned consideration of race as a factor, representation of African American and Hispanic students in admissions — not white students — would decline.

The 2022 Asian American Voter Survey found that 69 percent of Asian American voters favor affirmative action programs designed to help black people, other minorities and women gain better access to higher education.

Among Chinese Americans, support for affirmative action stands at 59 percent, the lowest within the Asian American community.

A Chinese American lawyer in Silicon Valley, California, said he opposes affirmative action because it is outdated.

"A long time has passed since affirmative action was created. We don't need it anymore," said the father of two, who requested anonymity. He said he fears that his children, now in middle school, will be disadvantaged when applying for college.

Chinese for Affirmative Action, an organization based in San Francisco, has been trying to persuade the Chinese community that the discrimination it faces is not the result of affirmative action.

Instead of focusing on affirmative action, the activists called for opponents to question other areas of the admissions process, such as legacy admissions and athletic preferences.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard fall under the categories of recruited athletes, legacy students and children of faculty and staff members. This percentage also includes the "dean's interest list", which consists of applicants whose parents or relatives have made donations to the university.

Related Stories

Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1994 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
主站蜘蛛池模板: 久久99精品国产麻豆婷婷洗澡 | 蜜臀av一区 | 在线日韩中文字幕 | 亚洲色图一区二区三区 | 成人免费毛片视频 | 色综合天天综合网天天狠天天 | 日本成人性视频 | 国产97在线观看 | 国产成人精品av久久 | 欧美精品久久久久久 | 国产一区在线观看免费 | 国产午夜久久 | 欧美极品在线观看 | 二区中文字幕 | av亚洲一区| 黄色a一级片 | 91在线一区 | 好吊妞视频在线观看 | 超级碰97| 欧美精品一区二区三区视频 | 精品成人国产 | 天天看片天天爽 | 欧美日韩视频在线播放 | 黄色片免费播放 | 国产精选一区二区 | 午夜在线视频免费观看 | 久久在线免费观看 | 99精品视频99| 奇米狠狠操 | 91香蕉国产在线观看软件 | 欧美精品欧美精品系列 | 丁香六月在线 | 特级丰满少妇一级aaaa爱毛片 | 欧美黄色一级视频 | 狠狠夜夜 | 黄色网址你懂的 | 日韩免费在线播放 | 亚洲成人激情小说 | 天堂激情网 | 福利视频一区二区 | 亚洲五月婷婷 |