Loading...
Title :
link :
Justice Department: 45% of Blacks at Harvard Admitted Through Illegal Race Preferences
Almost half of all blacks and Hispanics who attend Harvard were admitted because of illegal racial preferences in admissions according to a brief just filed by the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice filed the brief in a federal lawsuit filed by Students For Fair Admissions. It says Harvard's race-based admissions process violates federal law. This filing marks an extreme departure from the Obama Civil Rights Division that spent significant time and resources seeking to expand the use of race in decision making.
The brief says Harvard "considers applicants’ race at virtually every step, from rating applicants to winnowing the field of applicants when attempting to avoid an oversubscribed class." It notes that forty-five percent of African-Americans and Hispanics at Harvard are there because of racial preferences given to them during the admissions process.
The Justice Department notes that providing blacks racial preferences has created a large class of victim applicants: Asians. The brief:
Harvard’s process imposes a racial penalty by systematically disfavoring Asian-American applicants. It does so in part through the subjective personal rating that admissions officers apply with minimal guidance or supervision. That rating produces consistently poorer scores for Asian Americans.
The Justice Department brief also noted that Harvard employs a consistent racial quota to admit applicants to the class in essentially the same percentages, year after year. "The racial breakdown of Harvard’s admitted classes over time reflects that they are the product of deliberate racial balancing," the brief notes.
“Race discrimination hurts people and is never benign,” said Civil Rights Division Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband. “Unconstitutionally partitioning Americans into racial and ethnic blocs harms all involved by fostering stereotypes, bitterness, and division among the American people. The Department of Justice will continue to fight against illegal race discrimination.”
The brief portrays the Harvard admissions process as wholly race-obsessed, seeking to produce outcomes based on race as a primary concern:
The school considers race at virtually every step of its admission process. And its officials constantly monitor and continually reshape the racial makeup of each admitted class as it emerges. Those mechanisms confirm that Harvard’s racial balancing is no accident; it is engineered.
Federal law, Title VI, forbids schools that receive federal assistance from discriminating based on race. Harvard expressly agreed to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a civil-rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive any federal financial assistance.
Harvard's obsession with race continues even after students are admitted. The school offers over 300 courses dedicated to race, including “Caste, Race, and Democracy,” “Interracial Intimacy: Sex, Race, and Romance in the U.S.,” “Coloniality, Race and Catastrophe,” and without any hint of irony, “Understanding Educational Inequality through the Lens of Economics and Race,” “Diversity and Dispute Resolution,” and “The Role of Public Policy in U.S. Racial Inequality.”
Those denied admission are not the only victims of illegal racial preferences. Even those admitted suffer from higher dropout rates through the mismatch between admissions scores and the curriculum.
SOURCE
Trump vs. Democrats on Higher Education
“With malice toward none, with charity for all...let us strive to...achieve...a just and lasting peace among ourselves....” So said Abraham Lincoln in his magnificent second inaugural address just weeks before his assassination nearly 155 years ago.
Today’s harsh divisions between the Republicans and Democrats make Lincoln’s plea relevant today, and the Trump Administration budget for fiscal year 2021 demonstrates the extent of the ideological warfare between the major political parties with respect to higher education.
The Trump budget is viewed by the denizens of the D.C. swamp as austere, but it maintains the trillion dollar deficits amidst under four percent unemployment that characterize the current era, and despite exceedingly rosy economic assumptions, does not foresee balanced budgets anytime soon. But it has a distinct austerity vibe to it when applied to education. For example, the recommended budget for the U.S. Department of Education is down $5.6 billion (7.8%) over current spending levels.
The Administration must be reading this blog. To deal with dysfunctional federal student financial assistance programs, it proposes putting more stringent limits on PLUS loans to parents, ending student loan forgiveness for those with public sector jobs, restricting somewhat the amount graduate students can borrow, ending the Stafford subsidized loan program, reducing the federal Work Study program, etc. Needed reforms in my opinion. Additionally, the Trump budget proposes reductions in research funding for agencies such as the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, and the National Institutes of Health.
Contrast this with Democrats’ proposals. Rather than restricting federal student financial assistance, they wish to expand it significantly, including big increases in Pell Grants. Some Democratic leaders want to move towards “free college,” where the federal government makes college tuition free for at least community college if not four-year college students. And expand research funding. Some are advocating complete federal student loan forgiveness.
It is the equivalent of Democrats saying the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, while Republicans say that it will rise in the west. Completely opposing views. I once wrote a column called “Three Cheers for Gridlock,” suggesting that when radically different ideas are in play, failure to reach agreement keeps extreme positions from being adopted. That certainly is going to be the case in 2020—absolutely nothing radical is going to happen in higher education policy. Radical Trump budget cuts are dead on arrival, and given the complete lack of fiscal discipline in both parties (one unfortunate area of bipartisan agreement), I suspect the final budget will at least modestly increase total education spending.
Economists are lousy at economic forecasting, much less political prognostication. Nonetheless, as an aging tenured professor with little to lose, I think it is highly unlikely that one political party will control all of government next year. The presidency is clearly up for grabs and could go either way, although, as Democratic guru “Ragin’ Cajun” James Carville says, Trump will win if the Democrats nominate one of the radicals like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren (who now appears all but dead politically). Otherwise, it could go either way. The odds are 80% the Dems will control the House but also 75% that the GOP will control the Senate. The probability of 100% control of government by either party is small, meaning incremental change in higher education policy is more likely than truly substantive revisions until at least 2023.
One reason why a cost-sensitive policy closer to the GOP position may prevail ultimately is that decades of fiscally irresponsible behavior by both parties might lead to an economic crisis forcing the U.S. into fiscal austerity—a gentler version of what happened to Greece several years ago. Taxes may go up some and spending increases will cease for a time.
If that happens, higher education will be a big loser. Maintaining popular but fiscally shaky Social Security/Medical Care entitlements is politically vastly more popular than maintaining a bloated budget for the U.S. Department of Education or even costly student loan and grant subsidies. Declining public support for higher education, pronounced among Republicans but also surprisingly strong among Democrats, will prompt some fiscal brakes, slowing the fueling of bloated university bureaucracies and their enablers.
SOURCE
Some Australian Private schools may see government funding boost
Billions in extra funding could flow to private schools favoured by less well-off parents under changes by the federal government.
Private schools chosen by less well-off parents could receive a multi-billion dollar funding boost under changes proposed by the federal government.
New legislation introduced to parliament on Wednesday would change the way the government calculates the income of parents to measure of how much taxpayer money a school is entitled to.
"(This) will ensure more funding flows to the schools that need it most," Education Minister Dan Tehan told parliament.
The government estimates the change will open up an extra $3.4 billion for non-government school funding over the next decade.
"The new methodology will use the best available data to estimate the capacity of parents and guardians to contribute to the cost of schooling," Mr Tehan said.
It follows recommendations by the National School Resourcing Board to change the way the government calculated the incomes of student's parents and guardians.
SOURCE
thus Article
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article with the link address https://onechildsmart.blogspot.com/2020/02/justice-department-45-of-blacks-at.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment