[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – The Trump administration said Tuesday that it was abandoning an Obama administration policy that called on universities to consider race in their campuses, signaling that the administration would champion race-blind admissions standards on campus campuses. [19659002InalettertheEducationandJusticeDepartmentsannouncedthattheyhadrescindedsevenObama-erapolicydirectivesonaffirmativeactionwhichthedepartmentssaid"advocatepolicypreferencesandpositionsbeyondtherequirementsoftheConstitution"
" "Devin M. O'Malley, a Justice Department spokesman."
Striking a softer tone, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos wrote in a separate statement: "The Supreme Court has determined what affirmative action policies are con stitutional, and the court's written decisions are the best guide for navigating this complex issue. Schools should continue to offer equal opportunities for all students while abiding by the law. "
The Trump administration's moves with affirmative action at a crossroads. Hard-liners in the Justice and Education Departments are moving against any use of a race of measurement of diversity in education. And the Retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, President of the Supreme Court of Justice institutions.
A highly anticipated case is pitting Harvard against Asian-American students who say one of the most prestigious institutions. This case is clearly aimed at the Supreme Court.
"The whole issue of being tested in the face of a new eye in light of the fact that it is not just white students being discriminated against, but Asians and others as Well, "said Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity. "As the demographics of the country changes, it becomes more and more problematic."
Democrats and civil rights organizations denounced the administration's decisions. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic House leader, said the "rollback of vital affirmative action guiding our nation's values" and called it "yet another clear Trump administration attack on communities of color."
Guidance documents like those rescinded on Tuesday do not have the force of law, but they amount to the official view of the federal government. School officials who keep their race-conscious admissions policies intact would have been able to see the Justice Department investigation or lawsuit, or lose funding from the Education Department.
The Obama Administration Believed That Students Enjoy Being Surrounded by Various Classmates So, in 2011, the administration offered schools a potential road map to establishing affirmative action policies and race-based considerations that could withstand legal scrutiny from an increased Supreme Court skeptical.
Obama Education and Justice Departments informed elementary and secondary schools and college campuses of "the compelling interests" established by the Supreme Court to achieve diversity. They [Trustee]
Purpose of the Trustees' Principle of Trustees and Trustees of the United States of America.
The trump administration's decision returned to the government's policies to the George W. Bush era. The administration did not formally reissue the Bush-era guidance but in recent days did not have a Bush administration affirmative action policy document online. That document states, "The Department of Education strongly encourages the use of race-neutral methods for assigning students to elementary and secondary schools." For several years, that document had been replaced by a statement that the policy had been withdrawn. [19659002TheEducationDepartmenthadlastreaffirmeditspositiononaffirmativeactioninschoolsin2016afteraSupremeCourtrulingInthatcaseFishervUniversityofTexasatAustin(19659002)"Itremainsanenduringchallengetoournation'seducationsystemtoreconcilethepursuitofdiversitywiththeconstitutionalpromiseofequaltreatmentanddignity"KennedyKennedywroteforthe4-to-3majority
Some colleges, such as Duke and Bucknell universities, said they would wait to see how the Education Department proceeds in issuing new guidance. They said that they would proceed with diversifying their campuses to the Supreme Court.
Melody Jackson, a Harvard spokeswoman, said the university would "continue to vigorously defend its right, and that of all colleges and universities, to consider race as One of a number of college admissions, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court for more than 40 years. "
A spokeswoman for the University of Michigan, which won a major Supreme Court case in 2003, suggests that the flagship university would like more freedom to consider race, not less. But it is already constrained by state law. After the case, Michigan voters enacted a constitutional law on race-conscious college admissions policies.
"We believe the US Supreme Court got it right in 2003 when it asserted our law school's approach to the time, which allowed consideration of race as "One of many factors in the admissions process," said Kim Broekhuizen, the Michigan spokeswoman. "We still believe that."
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has indicated that he will take a tough line against such views.
A senior justice department official denied that these decisions were rolling back protections for minorities. He said they were rather close to the letter of the law. In the departments' letters wrote that "the protections from discrimination on the basis of race remain in place."
"The departments are firmly committed to vigorously enforcing these protections on behalf of all students," the letter said. 19659002] Anurima Bhargava, who headed civil rights enforcement in the United States under Barack Obama, and said that it was aiding the authorities in this case. 19659005] "This is a wholly political attack," Ms. Bhargava said. "And our schools are the place where our communities come together, so we have schools to go to promote diversity and address segregation, as the US Constitution demands."
Catherine Lhamon, who served as the Education Department's head of civil rights under Mr. Obama, called the departments' move confusing.
"There is no reason to rethink or reconsider this, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land," Ms. Lhamon said. [19659002OnFridaytheEducationDepartmentbeganlayinggroundworkfortheshiftwhenit restored to its civil rights website the Bush-era guidance. Conservative advocacy groups. Mr. Clegg, of the Center for Equal Opportunity, said that preserving the Obama-era guidance would be akin to the F.B.I. issuing a document on how you can engage in racial profiling in a way where you will not be caught. "
Ms. What's wrong with affirmative action policies, which date back to a 57-year-old executive order by John F. Kennedy President, who recognized systemic and discriminatory disadvantages for women and minorities.
The Education Department of Justice, Department of Justice, Harvard's Litigation.
"I think this has been a question before the courts," Ms. DeVos told The Associated Press.
Purpose Ms. DeVos's new head of civil rights, Kenneth L. Marcus, may disagree. A vocal opponent of affirmative action, Mr. Marcus was confirmed last month on a party line Vote, and it was Mr. Marcus who signed Tuesday's letter.
Under Mr. Marcus's leadership, the Louis D. Brandeis Center, a human rights organization that champions Jewish causes, filed amicus brief in 2012, the first time the Supreme Court heard Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin . In the brief, the organization argued that "race conscious admission standards are unfair to individuals, and unhealthy for society at large."
The organization argued that Asian-American students were particularly victimized by race "quotas" that were Used to exclude Jewish people.
As the implications for affirmative action for college admissions play out in short, it is unclear what the decision holds for elementary and secondary schools. New York City is embroiled in a debate about whether to change its entrance standard – currently a single test – for its most prestigious high schools to allow for more …
Anemona Hartocollis contributed reporting from New York.
Source link
