c******n
发帖数: 4965 | 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
里面讲到“
The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "
underrepresented minority groups," but that also took into account many
other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not
amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under Regents
of the University of California v. Bakke.
“
言外之意时说“a quota system" 已经明确指出来是违宪 （UC vs Bakke case)
SCA-5 很恶心， 没有说要作什么，就是把原来的明确禁止去掉， 说了个不关痛痒的话
："implementing ... measures permissible under 14th amendment equal
protection clause " . 不过这个到explicit quota system 之间还有很多灰色地带不
明说的quota system 阴招可以玩。 他要是直接搞quota 那倒还好了， 就直接说违宪
了 |
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 2 不错。先要读读法律，再发意见。像什么亚裔录取人数将降至 13% 之类的言论就是数
学太好了，但英文和逻辑太差了。
"The proposed amendment does not mandate an affirmative action program or
set a quota, Hernandez said. It also applies only to education and not
employment." |
k****m
发帖数: 4670 | 3 自己明摆着是被阴的那一方，还啥数学英文了
数学英文好也不让你上好大学 |
g********w
发帖数: 2539 | 4 这就好比被强奸了称赞强奸犯没有爆菊花一样可笑
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.2.2
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: 不错。先要读读法律，再发意见。像什么亚裔录取人数将降至 13% 之类的言论就是数
: 学太好了，但英文和逻辑太差了。
: "The proposed amendment does not mandate an affirmative action program or
: set a quota, Hernandez said. It also applies only to education and not
: employment."
|
