标题: Supreme Court upholds University of Texas affirmative action plan [打印本页] 作者: pp_dream 时间: 2016-6-24 08:47 标题: Supreme Court upholds University of Texas affirmative action plan
Supreme Court upholds University of Texas affirmative action plan
By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Updated 2:19 PM ET, Thu June 23, 2016
SCOTUS upholds university's affirmative action plan
SCOTUS upholds university's affirmative action plan 01:11
Story highlights
Supreme Court upholds University of Texas affirmative action plan
4-3 decision is a surprise
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas, saying that the plan taking race into consideration as one factor of admission is constitutional.
The 4-3 ruling greenlights the limited use of affirmative action polices by schools.
"The Court's affirmance of the University's admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University's ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
President Barack Obama, speaking from the White House, praised the decision.
"I'm pleased that the Supreme Court upheld the basic notion that diversity is an important value in our society and this country should provide a high quality education to all our young people regardless of their background," Obama said. "We are not a country that guarantees equal outcomes but we do strive to provide an equal shot to everybody. And that's what was upheld today." 作者: pp_dream 时间: 2016-6-24 08:48
对亚裔更不利了 作者: pp_dream 时间: 2016-6-30 04:17
转群里一妈妈的雄论:
很多事情站在种族的角度考虑不能说完全错, 但也未必全面。 每个人对种族歧视都有自己的看法和好恶, 但我更愿意将其理解为一种结果而非原因。 每个种族都有一定的特性, 这种特殊直接影响了他们在社会上的位置, 很多东西大家心知肚明,但是在政治正确的情况下不能说出来。 就像很多研究历史学的人不能理解为什么墨西哥和拉美照搬美国宪法却搞得一塌糊涂, 谁是都明白是人种的问题, 没人敢发表在论文里。
现在社会远比传统社会的结构复杂得多, 但不管如何复杂,只要人性不变,历史的基调都差不多: 政府一定是腐败的,只不过程度不同; 民众一定是愚昧的,因为只看重眼前的一点利益。
绝大多数的人都认同社会各个层面所存在的矛盾都源于资源分配还有机会的争夺, 却忽视了一点, 无论社会结构如何, 整个社会的顶端和底层反而有着共同的合作点: 那就是维持一个社会最基本的稳定。
在社会结构如金字塔般,如 中国一样的传统社会, 顶端的君主真正防范的是欺下瞒上的权臣与官吏, 既离不开,又需要防范, 因为底层的民众只要有温饱,社会就会稳定,不可能对他的权力构成任何的威胁。 假如我们仍旧简单粗暴的把美国的社会结构看做一个正态分布, 一端是向社会精英阶层的上升通道, 另一端就是 那些搞政治的人所常提到的the people who are left behind. 如果这部分人的数量急剧上升, 直接会影响到整个社会结构的变化, 最终导致社会的不稳定甚至动荡。 正在顶层社会精英的角度上考虑, 选拔社会精英并不是他们的当务之急, 更何况他们只想着如何维系自身的利益,让自己的精英的为一代代的传下去; 谁都知道美国的穷人实际上是懒人, 可是如果不喂饱这些人并给他们提供进入中产的上升通道, 这些人的后代说不定就会对他们自己的后代烧杀抢掠, 至于所谓的竹子天花板等问题, 大家都承认没有社会是完美的,但这不是最紧要的问题。 更何况美国是一个少数富人精英掌权, 而穷人掌票的国家, 这就注定了政客的短视, 中产特别是中高产受挤压, 亚裔首当其冲。 更何况美国的白人民众最怕的就是丧失他们的优越感, 他们对亚裔拼命的培养孩子成为社会精英的价值观也一定会非常痛恨, 相信这点很多人和孩子在学校都会有感受。
不过西方资本社会的最大好处就是承认人的趋利性与私心, 你可以争呀,夺呀,只要符合游戏规则 ,没人敢说个不字。 如果个人, 群体都不懂得保护自己的利益, 那只能说两个字,活该! 作者: pp_dream 时间: 2016-6-30 04:20 标题: The Case Against Affirmative Action
Stanford Alumni
The Case Against Affirmative Action
If, after 25 years, affirmative action has not succeeded in ending discrimination, perhaps it is time to try something else.
By David Sacks & Peter Thiel
Over the past quarter of a century, Stanford has been discriminating in favor of racial minorities in admissions, hiring, tenure, contracting and financial aid. But only recently has the University been forced to rethink these policies in the face of an emerging public debate over affirmative action.
We are beginning to see why. Originally conceived as a means to redress discrimination, racial preferences have instead promoted it. And rather than fostering harmony and integration, preferences have divided the campus. In no other area of public life is there a greater disparity between the rhetoric of preferences and the reality.
Take, for instance, the claim that racial preferences help the "disadvantaged." In reality, as the Hoover Institution's Thomas Sowell has observed, preferences primarily benefit minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. At the same time, because admissions are a zero-sum game, preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians (who meet admissions standards in disproportionate numbers). If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.
Another myth is that preferences simply give minority applicants a small "plus." In reality, the average SAT disparity between Stanford's African-American and white admittees reached 171 points in 1992, according to data compiled by the Consortium on Financing Higher Education and cited in Richard herrnstein and Charles Murray's book, The Bell Curve.
The fundamental unfairness and arbitrariness of preferences -- why should the under-qualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee? -- has led supporters to shift rationales in recent years. Instead of a remedy for disadvantage, many supporters now claim that preferences promote "diversity." This same push for "diversity" also has led Stanford to create racially segregated dormitories, racially segregated freshman orientation programs, racially segregated graduation ceremonies and curricular requirements in race theory and gender studies.
But if "diversity" were really the goal, then preferences would be given on the basis of unusual characteristics, not on the basis of race. The underlying assumption -- that only minorities can add certain ideas or perspectives -- is offensive not merely because it is untrue but also because it implies that all minorities think a certain way.
What's gone wrong? The basic problem is that a racist past cannot be undone through more racism. Race-conscious programs betray Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind community, and the heightened racial sensitivity they cause is a source of acrimony and tension instead of healing.
When University officials boast of "looking for racism everywhere," as multicultural educator Greg Ricks did in a 1990 Stanford Daily interview, then perhaps the most sensible (and certainly the most predictable) response will be for white students to avoid dealing with such quarrelsome people. In this way, the stress on "diversity" has made interracial interaction strained and superficial; multiculturalism has caused political correctness.
None of this is to deny that there are some people in America who are racist and that there are some features of American life that are legacies of a much more racist past. But racism is not everywhere, and there is very little at a place like Stanford. Certainly, no one has accused Stanford's admissions officers of being racist, so perhaps the real problem with affirmative action is that we are pretending to solve a problem that no longer exists. Moreover, there is a growing sense that if affirmative action has not succeeded in ending discrimination after 25 years of determined implementation, then perhaps it is time to try something else.
Although Stanford's admissions office cannot undo the wrongs of history, its mission is still very important -- namely, admitting the best class of students it can find. The sole criterion in finding the members of this class and in defining "merit" should be individual achievement -- not just grades and test scores, of course, but a broad range of accomplishments, in athletics, music, student government, drama, school clubs and other extracurricular efforts. But race and ethnicity (or gender or sexual preference) do not have a place on this list; these are traits, not achievements.
Perhaps the most tragic side effect of affirmative action is that very significant achievements of minority students can become compromised. It is often not possible to tell whether a given student genuinely deserved admission to Stanford, or whether he is there by virtue of fitting into some sort of diversity matrix. When people do start to suspect the worst -- that preferences have skewed the entire class -- they are accused of the very racism that justifies these preferences. It is a strange cure that generates its own disease.
A Stanford without affirmative action will be a Stanford in which the question of who belongs here will no longer need to be answered. It will no longer need to be answered because it will no longer need to be asked, not even sotto voce .
David Sacks, '94, is a law student at the University of Chicago. Peter Thiel, '89, JD '92, runs an investment firm. They are co-authors of The Diversity Myth: "Multi-culturalism" and the Politics of Intolerance at Stanford. 作者: pp_dream 时间: 2016-6-30 04:22
上周美国联邦最高法院驳回奥巴马总统移民行政命令,美国上百万无身份移民前途未卜,而就在同一天,最高法院的大法官们又以4比3的投票结果认定:在费雪状告德克萨斯大学(Fisher v. University of Texas)一案中原告白人女生费雪败诉,德州大学奥斯丁分校在招生录取过程中考虑种族因素的做法不构成违宪。
裁决结果一出,平权法案的支持者们很惊喜,而在美亚裔群体中却炸开了锅。很多亚裔担心这项判决结果会让公立大学在招生录取时对亚裔的逆向歧视*变得更加严重。
根据德州588法案(Texas House Bill 588),也被称为前10%规则(Top 10% Rule),德州高中成绩排名全年级前10%的毕业班学生将自动获得任一德州公立大学的录取。在费雪毕业的2008年,德州大学奥斯丁分校录取的新生中,有高达81%的新生是通过前10%规则获得自动录取从而进入该校就读。