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
    亚洲AV无码成H人在线观看| 台湾佬中文娱乐网22| 人妻无码中文字幕免费视频蜜桃 | 亚洲国产精品无码久久久不卡| 精品久久久久久无码中文野结衣| 无码国产精品一区二区免费式直播| 无码AV动漫精品一区二区免费| 亚洲AV无码成人专区片在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩中文字幕一区二区三区| 日韩经典精品无码一区| 精品欧洲AV无码一区二区男男| 国产成年无码久久久免费| 最新版天堂中文在线| 18禁网站免费无遮挡无码中文| 国产麻豆天美果冻无码视频| 无码人妻精品一区二区在线视频| 台湾无码AV一区二区三区| 最近中文字幕完整版资源| 久久精品中文无码资源站 | 色噜噜综合亚洲av中文无码 | 国产成人无码18禁午夜福利p| 一本一道av中文字幕无码| 亚洲精品无码AV中文字幕电影网站 | 精品久久人妻av中文字幕| 中文无码熟妇人妻AV在线| 人妻无码精品久久亚瑟影视| 国产精品无码AV一区二区三区| 色窝窝无码一区二区三区 | 亚欧免费无码aⅴ在线观看| 国产亚洲精久久久久久无码77777| 亚洲毛片网址在线观看中文字幕| 色婷婷综合久久久久中文字幕| 久久久噜噜噜久久中文字幕色伊伊 | 人妻丝袜中文无码av影音先锋专区| 中文字幕丰满乱孑伦无码专区| 精品无码久久久久国产动漫3d| 中文无码伦av中文字幕| 亚洲国产精品无码久久久蜜芽| 日韩午夜福利无码专区a| 成人无码精品1区2区3区免费看| AV无码免费永久在线观看|