l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 A federal appeals court on Monday rejected a bid by minority students to
overturn California’s ban on affirmative action in admissions to state
colleges and universities, saying the 1996 initiative approved by California
voters already had passed the court’s legal muster.
Ralph Kasarda, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said that “
today’s ruling is good news for everyone who values fairness and equal
opportunity.”
“If the people who brought this lawsuit are genuinely opposed to
discrimination in university admissions, as they claim, they should be
supporting Proposition 209 and its crystal-clear ban on discriminatory
policies, not trying to tear them down,” Mr. Kasarda said.
The lawsuit, filed by the liberal group By Any Means Necessary on behalf of
more than 40 black and Hispanic students, argued that the court should
revisit its 1997 decision upholding the law because 15 years in effect shows
discrimination against minority students.
The group argued that black, Hispanic and American Indian students from high
school programs that offer insufficient preparation cannot compete
effectively for University of California system slots.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed
unanimously. It ruled that the earlier court decision “considered the very
scenario Plaintiffs now allege” of declining minority enrollment, and thus
there is no new case against Proposition 209.
“The bottom line is that Wilson II remains the law of the circuit, and the
district court faithfully applied it,” the three judges ruled.
Donna Stern, By Any Means Necessary’s national coordinator, said the group
would file to have the case heard by the entire court. The organization is
working to build popular support for affirmative action through protests and
public-education events, she said.
“Obviously, we wish it had gone the other way,” Ms. Stern said. “Really,
in order to win these cases, it’s going to take a mass movement, including
occupations and sit-downs, demanding that admissions procedures and policies
change to provide opportunity for Latino, African-American and Native
American students.”
The lawsuit was filed against California Gov. Jerry Brown and the University
of California, but Mr. Brown refused to defend Proposition 209, siding with
those filing the lawsuit. The initiative was represented instead by the
Pacific Legal Foundation and the University of California system’s
attorneys.
“He not only refused to defend [Proposition 209], he filed against it,” Mr
. Kasarda said. “If the government doesn’t defend the law, it should be
very concerning to citizens.”
Mr. Brown also has refused to defend in court another voter-approved
initiative, Proposition 8, the measure against same-sex marriage, which has
been represented by ProtectMarriage.com.
Proposition 209, sponsored by Ward Connerly, a former University of
California regent, prohibits public universities from considering sex, race
or ethnicity in their admissions decisions. The measure has survived
repeated legal challenges, including two before the California Supreme Court.
Mr. Connerly praised the court’s decision in a statement, calling it “a
resounding reaffirmation of several prior court decisions which concluded
that equal treatment is solid law, and is consistent with America’s color-
blind ideals.”
A fresh round of lawsuits involving affirmative action at public
universities is now reaching the top federal courts.
A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently
overturned Michigan’s law against affirmative action, a carbon copy of
California’s Proposition 209. The full court heard oral arguments in March
after the ruling was appealed.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the University of
Texas’ admissions policy, which added race as a factor that may be used in
considering applications in 2003, following a high court decision that
declared such measures permissible.
In California, critics of affirmative action argue that state universities
are in fact admitting more non-Asian minority students than they were when
Proposition 209 was passed in 1996.
In 1989, 21.3 percent of freshmen admitted to the University of California
system were from such minority groups, according to a 2009 report submitted
by the plaintiffs. In 2009, that figure was 25.1 percent.
Supporters of affirmative action, however, counter that this figure is
misleading because the share of underrepresented minority students among
graduates of California public high schools has grown even faster [-] from
29.6 percent of graduates to 48.4 percent in that period.
“That’s the Ward Connerly line that the percentage has actually increased,
” Ms. Stern said, though she continued that, “it has not kept up with the
demographic growth overall. The gap between the number of underrepresented
minority students graduating and the number getting into these universities
is worse. And unless something changes, it’s going to get much worse.”
Her organization advocates eliminating standardized test scores as a
criterion for admissions, among other changes. | r****9
发帖数: 4961 | 2 inaccurate photo about Asian. It should be 1.15 for Asian male and 1.05 for
Asian female. |
|
