I remember how it was -- JR
Supreme court to review race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard, UNC
This sounds very hopeful, given the present court. Leftist racism might at last take a hit
The Supreme Court said it would decide whether to prohibit the use of race-conscious admissions in higher education, agreeing to consider challenges to policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
The court in a brief written order on Monday said it would consider a pair of challenges by a group called Students for Fair Admissions, led by conservative legal activist Edward Blum, which sued both schools on the same day in 2014.
The lawsuit against Harvard alleged the school used quota-like racial-balancing tactics that artificially raised the standards of admission for Asian-American applicants, in violation of federal civil-rights law. The challengers alleged Asians were admitted at a lower rate than whites, even though their overall academic scores were better.
Harvard rejected the claims of discrimination and said it only considered race in a flexible way, as one factor among many in building diverse classes of students.
Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department supported the lawsuit, but the Biden-era department abandoned that position and offered support for Harvard in a legal brief last month that urged the Supreme Court to turn away the challenge.
A Boston-based US district judge and a federal appeals court each sided with the school.
The lawsuit against UNC was similar to the Harvard allegations, though it added claims that the flagship public university in Chapel Hill violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
The challengers alleged the school unlawfully factored students’ race into the admissions process, favoring Black, Hispanic and Native American applicants and even caused them harm by inviting them into classrooms for which they weren’t prepared. The university, they said, didn’t fully pursue race-neutral alternatives to diversify its student body.
UNC in court papers said it has made progress on diversity but continues to face challenges in admitting underrepresented minorities. The school said it considered race as one of dozens of factors when evaluating applicants, which “may sometimes tip the balance toward admission in an individual case -- but it almost always does not.” A federal judge sided with UNC in October. The challengers then sought to bypass appellate review, asking the Supreme Court to go ahead and hear the case along with the Harvard litigation.
The Supreme Court is expected to consider the cases during its next term, which begins in October. Under that timeline, a ruling would be expected by June 2023.
Harvard President Lawrence Bacow said the court’s decision to review the cases puts at risk the ability of schools to create diverse campus communities, “which strengthens the learning environment for all.” He said Harvard would continue to defend its admissions practices. Given the lower courts’ unanimous rulings and Supreme Court precedent on the matter, he said, “there is no persuasive, credible evidence warranting a different outcome.”
UNC spokeswoman Beth Keith said the school would defend its admissions process, which it terms holistic. “As the trial court held, our process is consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent and allows for an evaluation of each student in a deliberate and thoughtful way,” she said.
“The cornerstone of our nation’s civil-rights laws is the principle that an individual’s race should not be used to help or harm them in their life’s endeavors,” Mr. Blum said, alleging that Harvard and UNC “racially gerrymandered” their classes to hit quotas. “It is our hope that the justices will end the use of race as an admissions factor at Harvard, UNC and all colleges and universities.”
While declining to comment on the litigation, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the Biden administration believes “in the benefits of diversity in higher education.” By taking the cases, the Supreme Court will be directly considering whether to reverse course on more than 40 years of precedent allowing some consideration of race in admissions. Current law permits schools to consider an applicant’s race in narrow ways, but not as a rigid set-aside for minority applicants.
The court’s 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke barred the use of racial quotas but said schools could use race in some circumstances for assembling a diverse student body. In 2003, the court in Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s use of race in admissions. And in 2016 the court ruled the University of Texas at Austin’s process passed constitutional muster, in another case backed by Mr Blum. Each of the decisions sparked deep divisions at the court.
Many selective colleges use what they call a holistic admissions review process, taking into consideration factors including academic credentials, extracurricular achievements and recommendations, as well as an applicant’s background. The goal, admissions officers say, is to ensure they enroll a mix of students whose life experiences and outlooks can enrich the educational opportunities of their classmates.
In writing for the court majority in the 2003 Grutter case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said the use of racial preferences wouldn’t be necessary 25 years on. Schools, though, say other systemic inequities, including ones baked into the K-12 education system, mean alternative efforts to improve diversity without considering race aren’t yet effective enough on their own.
Admissions officers say that just admitting students with the best grades in the hardest classes, or only taking those with top SAT or ACT scores, would close out opportunities for students whose schools had limited course offerings or who couldn’t afford expensive test-prep programs. By admitting students based on just test scores, one Georgetown University study showed, colleges would end up with student populations that are overwhelmingly whiter, wealthier and male.
By also considering an applicant’s background -- overcoming hardship, growing up with grandparents or taking care of a younger sibling, or otherwise making the most of limited resources -- admissions officers say they can spot other candidates with potential and achieve the aimed-for educational benefits of a diverse class.
Dozens of higher-education leaders have backed Harvard and UNC in the legal battle, as have corporate executives who say their talent pipelines would grow more homogeneous if affirmative action were disallowed.
**********************************************
NYC professors sue over forced representation by 'antisemitic' union
A group of New York City professors is suing for the right to no longer be represented by a labor union they say is antisemitic and has targeted the educators due to their beliefs.
City University of New York professors Avraham Goldstein, Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax and Maria Pagano have filed suit against the college, a slew of New York officials and the union, Professional Staff Congress/CUNY, seeking to no longer be forced to pay dues to PSC.
All of the educators resigned from PSC last summer after the union issued a resolution in support of the Palestinian people and condemning Israel. Five of the six plaintiffs are Jewish.
PSC's resolution stated that the CUNY union "cannot be silent about the continued subjection of Palestinians to the state-supported displacement, occupation, and use of lethal force by Israel" and goes on to say, among other things, that the chapter would consider officially supporting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel.
The plaintiffs say the resolution was "anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel," and that PSC has "single[d] them out for opprobrium, hatred, and harassment based on their religious, ethnic, and/or moral beliefs and identity." The professors say that being forced to be represented by and financially support the union violates their constitutional rights.
They also claim that the union representing them not only stands contrary to their own beliefs, but has proactively targeted them due to their religion.
The court filing alleges that Professor Michael Goldstein, who has taught at CUNY for 32 years and whose late father was a longtime chancellor of the institution, "has experienced anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist attacks from members of PSC, including what he sees as bullying, harassment, destruction of property, calls for him to be fired, organization of student attacks against him, and threats against him and his family."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc-professors-sue-end-forced-representation-by-union-anti-semitic
***************************************************Cops as teachers?
It’s no secret that educators have faced a nearly impossible task over the past two years. Even before the pandemic changed the way school was done, teachers were often heralded as overworked, underpaid heroes.
Now, many schools are facing a crisis as teachers have gotten sick or retired early and substitutes are hard to find, leaving parents in a bind as they try to continue their own work lives as well as their children’s education.
One public school system in Moore, Oklahoma, found a unique temporary solution.
“Moore PD is a proud community partner of Moore Public Schools,” the Moore Police Department posted on Facebook on Jan. 18. “This week, several on-duty officers are serving in the classroom as schools continue to face teacher and staff shortages.”
“We are thankful to be able to assist our community during these difficult times.”
Police Chief Todd R. Gibson said the officers volunteered for the gig and are not getting paid anything apart from their normal salary for taking on the job.
“Police officers did not have to participate, they chose to,” Gibson told Fox News. “These officers are deeply connected to the community and the schools. They always enjoy the opportunity to interact with the future of our community in a helpful way.”
***********************************
My other blogs: Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*******************************
No comments:
Post a Comment