Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett seek to uphold previous decisions in issues involving college affirmative action.On Monday, the Supreme Court heard two cases challenging the practice of affirmative action in college admissions, which marked the beginning of the formal demolition of the practice. Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a group claiming to represent the interests of Asian American and Pacific Islander students who contend they were subjected to discrimination by race-conscious admissions rules at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, filed the lawsuits.
Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 ruling that supported the use of race in the admissions process for the University of Michigan’s law school, has been challenged by anti-affirmative action activists who are also challenging admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. They have asked the court to overturn this ruling.
The outcome of this week’s Supreme Court case involving affirmative action in Harvard’s admissions is anticipated by everyone, especially at Harvard. Everything about the demographics of students in higher education may alter in the months to come.
Harvard is being sued by Students for Fair Admissions over alleged discrimination against Asian American students. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is collaborating with numerous student organizations right now to sway the Court’s decision and plan how to proceed after it.
Due to concrete proof that Harvard discriminates against AAPI students, the Harvard case was a little more challenging. As part of what its lawyers referred to as a “triage” procedure for narrowing down its vast applicant pool, Harvard employs a “personal rating” method. (For its 1,600 open positions, Harvard receives nearly 60,000 applicants.)
In comparison to other student groups, Asian American students score the lowest on this personal rating metric. Although the method by which Harvard generates a personal rating is mainly unclear, it includes letters of recommendation from professors and guidance counselors as well as opinions about applicants gleaned through in-person interviews with Harvard alumni. There is no justification for the lower marks for a huge range of students. I t’s plausible to assume that racism toward AAPI students is at least somewhat to blame.
Patrick Strawbridge, a lawyer representing those opposed to affirmative action, began his Monday testimony by passionately urging the high court to dismiss Grutter. Strawbridge referred to the decision as “grievously incorrect” and argued that race should never be used in admissions. “This Court should overrule it,” Strawbridge said.
The justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh didn’t appear overly interested in that strategy, though. They made a special effort to urge the high court to uphold earlier decisions about affirmative action rather than tossing them out.
In another Celebrity News update Fashion House ParisJewelry.com has started manufacturing new custom line of celebrity jewelry products with 30% Off and Free Shipping.
