Set as Homepage - Add to Favorites

日韩欧美成人一区二区三区免费-日韩欧美成人免费中文字幕-日韩欧美成人免费观看-日韩欧美成人免-日韩欧美不卡一区-日韩欧美爱情中文字幕在线

【reallifecam sexs video】Justices to Hear Challenge to Race in College Admissions

By MARK SHERMAN,reallifecam sexs video Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The conservative-dominated Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the consideration of race in college admissions, adding affirmative action to major cases on abortion, guns, religion and COVID-19 already on the agenda.

The court said it will take up lawsuits claiming that Harvard University, a private institution, and the University of North Carolina, a state school, discriminate against Asian American applicants. A decision against the schools could mean the end of affirmative action in college admissions.

Lower courts rejected the challenges, citing more than 40 years of high court rulings that allow colleges and universities to consider race in admissions decisions. But the colleges and universities must do so in a narrowly tailored way to promote diversity.

The court’s most recent pronouncement was in 2016, in a 4-3 decision upholding the admissions program at the University of Texas against a challenge brought by a white woman. But the composition of the court has changed since then, with the addition of three conservative justices who were appointed by then-President Donald Trump.

Two members of that four-justice majority are gone from the court: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020, and Justice Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018.

The three dissenters in the case, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, remain on the court. Roberts, a moderating influence on some issues, has been a steadfast vote to limit the use of race in public programs, once writing, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”

The court already has heard arguments in cases that could expand gun rights and religious rights and also roll back abortion rights in a direct challenge to the Roe v. Waderuling from 1973.

Earlier this month, the justices weighed in for the first time on President Joe Biden’s vaccine policies, halting a rule requiring a vaccine or testing at large businesses while allowing a vaccine mandate for most of the nation’s health care workers.

The affirmative action case probably will be argued in the fall. Both suits were filed by Students for Fair Admissions, a Virginia-based group run by Edward Blum. He has worked for years to rid college admissions of racial considerations, and the court’s new lineup breathed new life into his project.

The group is calling on the court to overturn its 2003 ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the University of Michigan’s law school admissions program.

The Biden Administration had urged the justices to stay away from the issue, writing in the Harvard case that the challenges “cannot justify that extraordinary step” of overruling the 2003 decision.

Harvard President Lawrence Bacow said the Ivy League institution does not discriminate and vowed to continue defending its admissions plan. “Considering race as one factor among many in admissions decisions produces a more diverse student body which strengthens the learning environment for all,” Bacow said in a statement.

Blum voiced hope that the high court will order an end to taking account of race in college admissions. “Harvard and the University of North Carolina have racially gerrymandered their freshman classes in order to achieve prescribed racial quotas,” Blum said in a statement.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on college admissions several times over more than 40 years. The current dispute harks back to its first big affirmative action case in 1978, when Justice Lewis Powell set out the rationale for taking account of race even as the court barred the use of racial quotas in admissions.

In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke,Powell approvingly cited Harvard as “an illuminating example” of a college that takes “race into account in achieving the educational diversity valued by the First Amendment.”

Twenty-five years later, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor likewise invoked the Harvard plan in her opinion in the Michigan law school case.

Now the Harvard program is under fire from opponents of race-based affirmative action.

Students for Fair Admissions claims that Harvard imposes a “racial penalty” on Asian American applicants by systematically scoring them lower in some categories than other applicants and awarding “massive preferences” to Black and Hispanic applicants.

Harvard flatly denies that it discriminates against Asian American applicants and says its consideration of race is limited, pointing out that lower courts agreed with the university.

In 2020, the federal appeals court in Boston ruled that Harvard looked at race in a limited way in line with Supreme Court precedents.

Harvard’s freshman class is roughly one-quarter Asian American, 16% Black and 13% Hispanic, Harvard says on its website. “If Harvard were to abandon race-conscious admissions, African American and Hispanic representation would decline by nearly half,” the school told the court in urging it to stay out of the case.

Groups representing Asian American, Black, Hispanic, Native American and white Harvard students and alumni voiced fear to the appeals court about what would result if Harvard lost.

“If forced to abandon race-conscious admissions, Harvard would become a markedly less diverse institution due to persistent barriers to equal K-12 educational opportunities and discriminatory standardized tests,” the groups wrote in an appellate brief.

The Trump Administration had backed Blum’s case against Harvard and filed its own lawsuit alleging discrimination against Asian American and white people at Yale University. The Biden Administration dropped the Yale suit.

North Carolina’s flagship public university prevailed in a federal district court in October. U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs ruled that the school’s program was intended to produce a diverse student body and had shown the benefits of doing so.

The court accepted the North Carolina case for review even though it has not been heard by a federal appeals court. Blum filed a Supreme Court appeal with the hope that it would be bundled with the Harvard case so that the justices could rule on public and private colleges at the same time.

0.1696s , 8357.8359375 kb

Copyright © 2025 Powered by 【reallifecam sexs video】Justices to Hear Challenge to Race in College Admissions,Public Opinion Flash  

Sitemap

Top 主站蜘蛛池模板: 国产免费九九久久精品一区 | 日韩中文字幕有码视频欧美 | www在线观看一区二区三区 | 国产精品夜色视频一区二区三区 | 无码国模产在线观看免费 | 久久夜色精品国产尤物 | 成人精品一区二区三区网站 | 精品91自产拍在线观看二区 | 丁香六月狠狠激情综合基地 | a三级三级成人网站在线视频 | 久久不卡影院 | 日日夜夜精视频七七九九网 | 人妻无码不卡在线视 | 911精品国产91久久久久 | 少妇和大狼拘作爱A片 | 国内偷拍在线偷拍视频 | 久草在在线免在线观看视频 | 国产精品亚洲欧美日韩一区在线 | 国产精品99久久久久久猫咪 | 精品无码一区二区河北彩花 | 婷婷91区二区三区 | 午夜成人亚洲理伦片在线观看 | 中文字幕第4页 | 91九色视频无限观看免费 | av国内精品久久久久影院 | 久久久久久精品久久久久 | 成年女人视频在线 | 精品一区二区三区影院在线 | 国产野外无码片在线观看97久久曰曰久久久 | 日韩一道本高清不卡专区 | 精品亚洲欧美中文字幕在线看 | 波多野结衣与老人系列 | 精品国产乱码久久久久久1区2 | 黄色网在线免费观看 | 亚洲国产成人久久综合小说 | 国产亚洲精品福利在线 | 色99久久久久高潮综合影院 | 18禁真人抽搐一进一出动态图 | 三区日本天堂少妇无码太爽了不卡 | 婷婷色亚洲 | 天美传媒剧国产剧情mv公司 |