www射-国产免费一级-欧美福利-亚洲成人福利-成人一区在线观看-亚州成人

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 1995 - . 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: 萌白酱粉嫩jk福利视频在线观看 | 亚洲国产欧美一区二区欧美 | 3d动漫精品成人一区二区三 | av成人天堂| 欧美精品一级 | 在线国产观看 | 国产日韩欧美一区二区三区在线 | 日本丶国产丶欧美色综合 | 日韩欧美综合在线二区三区 | 国产精品久久人人做人人爽 | 久久久亚洲精品蜜桃臀 | 日韩中文在线观看 | 欧美人成毛片在线播放 | 国产精品久久久久一区二区三区 | 亚洲精品亚洲人成毛片不卡 | 99热久久国产精品免费看 | 久久久不卡国产精品一区二区 | 欧美特黄高清免费观看的 | 亚洲经典在线中文字幕 | 免费久久精品 | 欧美高清在线精品一区 | 黄色一级片在线看 | 免费一级a毛片在线播 | 日韩欧美视频在线一区二区 | 国产成人yy精品1024在线 | 99久久精品自在自看国产 | 亚洲欧美日本综合 | 亚洲网址在线 | 99免费精品视频 | 一级做a爰片久久毛片16 | 3至13呦女毛片 | 成人亚洲网 | 色婷婷久久综合中文久久蜜桃 | 国产亚洲精品成人a在线 | 欧美日韩看看2015永久免费 | 99精品在线免费 | 免费一级 一片一毛片 | 欧洲成人在线视频 | 日韩一级片免费在线观看 | 男女性男女刺激大片免费观看 | 8888奇米四色在线 |