<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: 久久久国产精华液| 国产成人做受免费视频| 男女性高爱潮免费网站| 日日橹狠狠爱欧美视频| 亚洲午夜久久久影院| 国产一区在线播放av| 国产乱精品一区二区三区| 亚洲精品日韩在线丰满| 亚洲综合在线日韩av| 少妇又爽又刺激视频| 日韩精品无码一区二区三区| 久久99国产精品尤物| 精品国产三级a∨在线欧美| 久久羞羞色院精品全部免费| 久久综合精品国产一区二区三区无 | 欧美老少配性行为| 亚洲爆乳少妇无码激情| 亚洲成a人片77777kkkk| 东京热av无码电影一区二区 | 欧美zozo另类人禽交| 精品一区二区三区四区激情| 韩国三级+mp4| 亚洲国产成人无码av在线播放| 国产亚洲精品日韩香蕉网| 99RE6在线观看国产精品| 99国产精品自在自在久久| 亚洲AV无码乱码1区久久| 无码日韩做暖暖大全免费不卡| 57pao国产成视频免费播放| 日韩乱码人妻无码中文字幕视频 | 国产中文99视频在线观看| 五月综合婷婷久久网站| 国产精品午夜福利在线观看| 久久久一本精品99久久精品36| 亚洲嫩模一区二区三区视频| 麻花传媒免费网站在线观看| 西欧free性满足hd| XXXXXHD亚洲日本HD| 五月婷网站| 天堂V亚洲国产V第一次| 久久18禁高潮出水呻吟娇|