f****a
发帖数: 4708 | 1 就是法官说不合宪法，希望25年以后不再重演的案例。
谢谢 | M******e
发帖数: 382 | 2 没有这个案例，最高法院从来没有判决affirmative action违宪。
【在 f****a 的大作中提到】
: 就是法官说不合宪法，希望25年以后不再重演的案例。
: 谢谢
| f***e
发帖数: 5443 | 3 wiki里面很多呀
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States
UCLA professor Richard H. Sander published an article in the November 2004
issue of the Stanford Law Review that questioned the effectiveness of racial
preferences in law schools. He noted that, prior to his article, there had
been no comprehensive study on the effects of affirmative action.[79] The
article presents a study that shows that half of all black law students rank
near the bottom of their class after the first year of law school and that
black law students are more likely to drop out of law school and to fail the
bar exam.[79] The article offers a tentative estimate that the production
of new black lawyers in the United States would grow by eight percent if
affirmative action programs at all law schools were ended. Less qualified
black students would attend less prestigious schools where they would be
more closely matched in abilities with their classmates and thus perform
relatively better.[79] Sander helped to develop a socioeconomically-based
affirmative action plan for the UCLA School of Law after the passage of
Proposition 209 in 1996, which prohibited the use of racial preferences by
public universities in California. This change occurred after studies showed
that the graduation rate of blacks at UCLA was 41%, compared to 73% for
whites.
To accommodate the ruling in Hopwood v. Texas banning any use of race in
school admissions, the State of Texas passed a law guaranteeing entry to any
state university if a student finished in the top 10% of their graduating
class. Florida and California have also replaced racial quotas with class
rank and other criteria. Class rank tends to benefit top students at less
competitive high schools, to the detriment of students at more competitive
high schools. This effect, however, may be intentional since less-funded,
less competitive schools are more likely to be schools where minority
enrollment is high. Critics argue that class rank is more a measure of one's
peers than of one's self. The top 10% rule adds racial diversity only
because schools are still highly racially segregated because of residential
patterns.[80] The class rank rule has the same consequence as traditional
affirmative action: opening schools to students who would otherwise not be
admitted had the given school used a holistic, merit-based approach.[80]
From 1996 to 1998, Texas had merit-based admission to its state universities
, and minority enrollment dropped. The state's adoption of the "top 10
percent" rule returned minority enrollment to pre-1996 levels.[80]
In 2006, Jian Li, a Chinese undergraduate at Yale University, filed a civil
rights complaint with the Office for Civil Rights against Princeton
University, claiming that his race played a role in their decision to reject
his application for admission and seeking the suspension of federal
financial assistance to the university until it "discontinues discrimination
against Asian Americans in all forms" by eliminating race and legacy
preferences. Princeton Dean of Admissions Janet Rapelye responded to the
claims in the November 30, 2006, issue of the Daily Princetonian by stating
that "the numbers don't indicate [discrimination]." She said that Li was not
admitted because "many others had far better qualifications." Li's
extracurricular activities were described as "not all that outstanding".[81]
Li countered in an email, saying that his placement on the waitlist
undermines Rapelye's claim. “Princeton had initially waitlisted my
application,” Li said. “So if it were not for a yield which was higher
than expected, the admissions office very well may have admitted a candidate
whose "outside activities were not all that outstanding".[82]
A study in 2007 by Mark Long, an economics professor at the University of
Washington, demonstrated that the alternatives of affirmative action proved
ineffective in restoring minority enrollment in public flagship universities
in California, Texas, and Washington.[83] More specifically, apparent
rebounds of minority enrollment can be explained by increasing minority
enrollment in high schools of those states, and the beneficiaries of class-
based (not race) affirmative action would be white students.[83] At the same
time, affirmative action itself is both morally and materially costly: 52
percent of white populace (compared to 14 percent of black) thought it
should be abolished, implying white distaste of using racial identity, and
full-file review is expected to cost the universities an additional $1.5
million to $2 million per year, excluding possible cost of litigation.[83]
In 2012, Abigail Fisher, an undergraduate student at Louisiana State
University, and Rachel Multer Michalewicz, a law student at Southern
Methodist University, filed a lawsuit to challenge the University of Texas
admissions policy, asserting it had a "race-conscious policy" that "violated
their civil and constitutional rights".[84] The University of Texas employs
the "Top Ten Percent Law", under which admission to any public college or
university in Texas is guaranteed to high school students who graduate in
the top ten percent of their high school class.[85] Fisher has brought the
admissions policy to court because she believes that she was denied
acceptance to the University of Texas based on her race, and thus, her right
to equal protection according to the 14th Amendment was violated.[86] The
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fisher on October 10, 2012, and
rendered a ruling in 2013 that declared the University's policy
unconstitutional because there were race-neutral factors available, holding
that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to eliminate racial barriers, not
perpetuate them. | f********l
发帖数: 112 | 4 Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
"We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no
longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."
Fisher v. Texas (2013)
After 10 years, the Court looked at the issue again. The Court did not ban
affirmative action, but required strict scrutiny for the race factor. It
has been sent back to the lower court to be reviewed under the strict
scrutiny test. | f****a
发帖数: 4708 | 5 Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
谢谢，这个是我要找的。
现在就给28选区的chuck page发去。 | M******e
发帖数: 382 | 6 Please, you are using the wrong case! Grutter v. Bollinger actually upheld
the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law
School.
Gratz v. Bollinger is a better case, but it does not apply to SCA5.
【在 f****a 的大作中提到】
: Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
: 谢谢，这个是我要找的。
: 现在就给28选区的chuck page发去。
| f****a
发帖数: 4708 | 7 我知道那个是upheld AA，但是关键是法庭决议书里说了AA是应该有时效期的。
【在 M******e 的大作中提到】
: Please, you are using the wrong case! Grutter v. Bollinger actually upheld
: the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law
: School.
: Gratz v. Bollinger is a better case, but it does not apply to SCA5.
| M******e
发帖数: 382 | 8 25年有效期还早着呢，你这案例明显给对手提供炮弹。
【在 f****a 的大作中提到】
: 我知道那个是upheld AA，但是关键是法庭决议书里说了AA是应该有时效期的。
| z***e
发帖数: 5600 | 9 不必那么复杂，这SCA5哪里提到Affirmative Actions了？就是个给政府权利搞种族，
性别，出生国歧视的法案
【在 f****a 的大作中提到】
: 就是法官说不合宪法，希望25年以后不再重演的案例。
: 谢谢
|
|
