The U.S. Supreme Court has found that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admissions policy violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
for the latest updates and reaction to this rulinghas found that Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s admissions policyThe decision reverses decades of precedent upheld over the years by narrow court majorities that included Republican-appointed justices. It could end the ability of colleges and universities — public and private — to do what most say they still need to do: consider race as one of many factors in deciding which of the qualified applicants is to be admitted.
The two cases overlap. Because UNC is a state school, the question is whether its affirmative action program violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee to equal protection of the law. And even though Harvard is a private institution, it still is covered by federal anti-discrimination laws because it accepts federal money for a wide variety of programs.
The Harvard case has a particular resonance because the school has a sordid history of imposing Jewish quotas in the 1920s, ’30s and ’40s to limit the number of Jewish students on campus. That history has allowed SFFA’s lawyers to claim that at Harvard, “Asians are the new Jews.” Perhaps because of that asserted link to history, Harvard decided to have a full-blown trial that lasted more than two weeks, involved years of production of documents, and hundreds of thousands of emails.
“The Court has permitted race-based college admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions: such admissions programs must comply with strict scrutiny, may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and must—at some point—end,” the court wrote in its majority opinion. “Respondents’ admissions systems fail each of these criteria and must therefore be invalidated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Österreich Neuesten Nachrichten, Österreich Schlagzeilen
Similar News:Sie können auch ähnliche Nachrichten wie diese lesen, die wir aus anderen Nachrichtenquellen gesammelt haben.
Supreme Court blocks use of affirmative action at Harvard, UNC in blow to diversity effortsThe Supreme Court on Thursday invalidated race-conscious admissions policies used by Harvard and UNC to diversify their campuses. The decision could have enormous consequences not only for higher education but also the American workplace.
Weiterlesen »
Supreme Court news: Why 6-3 conservative court has Obama, Schumer, and Pelosi cheeringDemocrats are cheering for the conservative majority Supreme Court after a Tuesday ruling in Moore v. Harper, saying the rejection of the so-called independent state legislature theory marked a win for voting rights.
Weiterlesen »
Summit County judge achieves re-certification from Ohio Supreme Court for Valor Court ProgramPresiding Judge Susan Baker Ross earned a final certificate from the Ohio Supreme Court's Commission on Specialized Dockets for the Valor Court.
Weiterlesen »
Supreme Court rejects independent state legislature theory: What it means for redistrictingIn a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against North Carolina’s Republicans, saying state lawmakers do not have sole authority to set rules for federal elections without interference from state judges.
Weiterlesen »
Samuel Alito breaks with majority in ex-clerk's Supreme Court election caseAlito ruled that the case being argued by one of his former law clerks was 'indisputably moot.'
Weiterlesen »
Supreme Court makes it more difficult to convict someone of making a threatThe Supreme Court ruled Tuesday to make it more difficult to convict a person of making a violent threat. The case could make it harder for prosecutors to convict certain people who threaten elected officials, including the president. The high court ruled in a case that involves a man who was sentenced to more than four years in prison in Colorado for sending threatening Facebook messages.
Weiterlesen »