<tt id="6hsgl"><pre id="6hsgl"><pre id="6hsgl"></pre></pre></tt>
          <nav id="6hsgl"><th id="6hsgl"></th></nav>
          国产免费网站看v片元遮挡,一亚洲一区二区中文字幕,波多野结衣一区二区免费视频,天天色综网,久久综合给合久久狠狠狠,男人的天堂av一二三区,午夜福利看片在线观看,亚洲中文字幕在线无码一区二区

          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: 日本亚洲成高清一区二区三区| av中文一区二区三区| Y111111国产精品久久久| 欧美色欧美亚洲高清在线视频| 7777精品伊人久久久大香线蕉| 国产日韩午夜视频在线观看| 无码伊人久久大蕉中文无码| 亚洲国产精品日韩av专区| 亚洲综合网国产精品一区| 女人的天堂A国产在线观看| 精品在线观看视频二区| 国产a在视频线精品视频下载| 成年丰满熟妇午夜免费视频| 97无码免费人妻超级碰碰碰| 天堂资源在线| 国产国拍亚洲精品永久软件| 日韩在线观看中文字幕| 人妻无码久久中文字幕专区| 无码gogo大胆啪啪艺术| 国产精一区二区黑人巨大| 日本一区二区三区专线| 国产成人无码一区二区三区| 婷婷精品国产亚洲AV麻豆不片| 亚洲黄片一区二区三区| 国产精品一线二线三线区| 亚洲人成网站77777在线观看| 国产伦一区二区三区久久| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 国产乱色国产精品免费视频 | 欧美色欧美亚洲高清在线视频 | 在线精品亚洲一区二区绿巨人| 高清自拍亚洲精品二区| 99热久久这里只有精品| 亚洲成人四虎在线播放| 国产成人精品亚洲精品日日| 日本精品人妻无码77777| 国产精品女同一区二区久| 国内久久人妻风流av免费| 亚洲天堂在线观看完整版| 日本熟妇浓毛| 麻豆aⅴ精品无码一区二区|