Tag: Harvard University

With the fate of affirmative action in the hands of the Supreme Court, these graduates are fighting to save it | CNN

CNN
—

For nearly 60 years, institutions of higher education have been able to give limited preference to people of color and women with admissions.

The practice, advocates say, has afforded marginalized people a fair chance to attend colleges and universities that may have otherwise overlooked them. It has also been a tool to prevent discrimination at institutions, many of which historically only admitted White students.

Now the fate of affirmative action is in the hands of the conservative majority Supreme Court. On Monday, justices will hear arguments for two cases at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

The challenges are being spearheaded by conservative activist Edwin Blum who filed the lawsuits in 2014.

The Harvard challenge cites Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits schools receiving federal funds from discriminating based on race. The UNC lawsuit also claims Title VI grounds, as well as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law, which covers state institutions.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights is among the groups that will be defending the constitutionality of affirmative action before the Supreme Court.

Genevieve Bonadies Torres, associate director for the Educational Opportunities Project for the committee, said affirmative action has led to college campuses becoming more diverse. In return, Black and brown students are able to achieve “profound economic mobility” and uplift their communities, Torres said.

“What we know from both experience and research is that when colleges stop considering race, they have seen steep declines in the number of Black and Hispanic students who gain access,” Torres said. “Students of color are less likely to apply once they stop considering race because they see them as less inclusive and welcoming.”

Torres said in 2015 students at both Harvard and UNC got involved in the cases by submitting letters and testifying about their experience on each campus and the importance of diversity.

CNN spoke with three of the college graduates involved about why they believe affirmative action should be upheld.

Cecilia Polanco grew up in a working-class family to parents who immigrated to the United States from El Salvador. Polanco said her father worked construction and her mother was a seamstress who also cleaned homes to provide for their family.

She said her parents allowed her to focus on school because they wanted a better life for her. Neither had the opportunity to finish school in El Salvador.

Polanco said she worked twice as hard and took AP courses in high school. She knew that as a Latina child of immigrants, she didn’t have the same resources as her White counterparts.

In 2011, Polanco was selected as a Morehead-Cain Scholar at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill which offered her a full ride scholarship.

Polanco said she believes affirmative action helped “level the playing field” so that students of color like herself could receive such a prestigious scholarship.

“If we had a more equitable and just society, we wouldn’t need something like affirmative action,” Polanco said. “But we do because our society is unjust.”

Polanco recounted being one of few students of color in some of her college classes and reading hurtful comments online from people who said she only got into UNC because the school had to meet a diversity quota.

But she didn’t let it deter her. She ultimately became a staunch advocate for affirmative action and was eager to contribute to the court case.

Now Polanco works as a community organizer in Durham, North Carolina where she focuses on philanthropy, racial equity and youth organizing.

“I think affirmative action helps see the ways in which I didn’t have some of the same opportunities as other people, as my White counterparts,” Polanco said. “There are many valuable life experiences that I had that made me a valuable asset to UNC.”

Polanco plans to be in Washington D.C. today as the Supreme Court hears arguments in the case. She believes the high court will ultimately uphold the practice.

“I’m definitely feeling optimistic,” Polanco said. “I feel like I’d be surprised if it went the other way.”

Andrew Brennen said he has always faced reminders that he is Black.

From high school peers asking why he didn’t fit the stereotypical Black teen to being one of few Black students in his classes at UNC, Brennen said he never felt completely accepted.

He recounted one class discussion about affirmative action at UNC when a White student questioned whether some Black students were fully qualified to be at the university. Brennen also witnessed the protests on UNC’s campus when the “Silent Sam” Confederate statue was toppled.

With college campuses still battling racism, Brennen fears that overturning affirmative action could only make matters worse.

“The evidence is pretty clear that when admissions officers are not able to take race into account, diversity on campus suffers,” Brennen said. “These efforts to hold folks accountable for the history and current day racism on campus are led by students of color. And the reality is that our schools need to be as diverse as the workplaces and societies that we are supposed to be preparing to move into.”

Brennen said he was eager to offer his perspective when the North Carolina Justice Center asked him to write a letter in support of affirmative action for the case.

Brennen, the son of two attorneys, credited affirmative action for the success of his family. His parents, he said, both grew up poor but were able to attend law school and pursue legal careers.

Brennen said his parents instilled the importance of education in him and taught him how affirmative action had helped many Black families prosper.

Brennen graduated from UNC in 2019 with a degree in political science. He now works for a social change venture.

“There are people out there who want to exploit the fact that affirmative action somehow means that your White kid is going to suffer,” Brennen said. “I think that hugely mischaracterizes what affirmative action is doing.”

Affirmative action, he said, gives everyone, regardless of race, a fair shot at a quality education and success.

Brennen said he worries that the conservative majority Supreme Court won’t agree.

“While I’m confident that our attorneys are making strong, constitutionally-backed, precedent-based arguments in support of affirmative action, I’m nervous that this court doesn’t care,” Brennen said.

Thang Diep experienced confusion over his identity throughout his childhood.

Diep said he immigrated with his family from Vietnam to the U.S. (Los Angeles) at the age of 8 and didn’t speak much English. As he gradually learned the language, he still had a thick accent and classmates teased him throughout the grade school. Some would call him Chinese when really he was Vietnamese. As Diep settled into American life, he watched his father travel back and forth to Vietnam for work so he could still provide for the family. Diep’s mom didn’t work and stayed home.

When it came time to apply for colleges, Harvard was not on Diep’s radar.

“It seemed out of reach and this impossible thing,” Diep said.

But three days before the admissions application was due, his mother encouraged him to take a chance and apply. Diep said in his admissions essay, he wrote about his struggles with racial identity and fitting in during grade school.

Diep ultimately was accepted and studied neuroscience at Harvard.

When Diep was asked to write a letter in support of affirmative action while attending Harvard, Diep jumped at the opportunity. He believed Asian Americans, particularly Southeast Asian Americans, had been left out of the conversation and wanted the world to know that they too support affirmative action. Asian Americans, he said, are not a monolith. Contrary to the “model minority” stereotype, some Asian Americans come from working- class families like he did, Diep said.

“I think we live in society where race plays a critical role in our experiences and what access to resources we have,” Diep said. “One way we can make the education system better is to acknowledge and take into account these barriers.”

Diep now works for a nonprofit that works to combat domestic violence.

Diep said he will be in Washington D.C. rallying around affirmative action with other college graduates and students. He said he stands in solidarity with all communities of color that are fighting to keep affirmative action.

“I feel like there is some sense of optimism,” Diep said. “I hope that this will become an educational opportunity to spread awareness about the impact.”

Source link

October 29, 2022
As Race-Conscious Admissions Policies Go Before the Supreme Court, Here’s What 6 Experts Are Listening For

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday in two cases that challenge colleges’ consideration of race in admissions decisions — one against Harvard College, the other against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The outcomes of the cases, which have been making their way through the court system since 2014, could decide the fate of race-conscious admissions in America. Legal observers believe that the now-conservative court may seize the opportunity to end the practice altogether.

The Chronicle asked six legal and higher-education experts to share one key thing that they will be watching for during the arguments on Monday and to explain why that could be pivotal. These are not predictions but informed thoughts from people who have been watching the cases for about nine years.

Liliana M. Garces, a professor of educational leadership and policy at the University of Texas at Austin, who studies how legal and education systems shape educational opportunity.

These cases represent a conflict in America over how to address racial discrimination and promote equal access and opportunity in higher education. I’ll be watching for how the justices debate this question as they consider how to interpret the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A special report on the imperiled future of race-conscious admissions.

For 44 years, the court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause to allow for a limited consideration of race in admissions so that postsecondary institutions can promote educational opportunity and maintain racially and ethnically diverse campuses that are critical for their educational mission and for sustaining the health of our democracy. That’s an approach that says: We promote equal access and address racial discrimination — not by ignoring race, but by understanding how it shapes educational opportunity. The plaintiffs in these cases are asking the justices to change that interpretation under the fallacy that being conscious of race in admissions is the same as racial discrimination.

Research consistently shows that not being able to consider race as one of many factors in admissions exacerbates racial inequities and allows racial discrimination to persist. We address racial discrimination by acknowledging how race matters in a student’s life, not by ignoring that reality.

OiYan Poon, a visiting professor of education at the University of Maryland at College Park and co-author of Rethinking College Admissions: Research-Based Practice and Policy.

I will be listening for how the justices and attorneys talk about Asian Americans in relationship to other students and people. Ed Blum and SFFA [Students for Fair Admissions, the plaintiff] are banking on the justices and the public to believe racist stereotypes about Asian Americans, Native Americans, African Americans, and Latinx people. Some think of Asian Americans as stereotypically and universally hardworking and book-smart, and other students of color as not being intelligent and hardworking — all flattened and dehumanizing concepts of who people are. We are all complex individuals whose educational journeys have been shaped by different local, social, and economic contexts.

Race-conscious holistic admissions practices allow admissions professionals to affirm individual students’ unique backgrounds and stories. Diversity matters to education and to a healthy democracy. Research has shown that Asian Americans benefit from race-conscious admissions and that the majority of Asian Americans support affirmative action and haven’t fallen for SFFA’s divisive rhetoric. Will education research and the majority perspective of Asian Americans matter to the justices?

Joshua Dunn, a professor of political science and director of the Center for the Study of Government and the Individual at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.

Of the two cases, I think Harvard has a better chance, although still a small one, of winning. To do that, they will have to peel off two conservative votes, so I’m going to closely watch how their counsel tries to persuade some of the conservative wing that they are not engaging in pernicious discrimination, or how even if that bloc has concerns about Harvard’s policies, that they should be more concerned about empowering greater federal control of private institutions. For the former, that will require them to, I think, do better than their briefs do at explaining why Asian American applicants consistently receive lower “personal ratings” compared with other groups.

The court struck down Michigan’s undergraduate admissions program in Gratz v. Bollinger because it was too “automatic” in awarding points to applicants from historically underrepresented groups. The personal ratings will likely strike the conservatives as being suspiciously automatic. For the latter, Harvard could try to appeal to the longstanding worries of conservatives about the homogenizing and centralizing effects of imposing national policies on private institutions. This, however, would require them to make arguments uncomfortably similar to the original opponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But in the end, it might be their best hope.

Art Coleman, managing partner at EducationCounsel LLC and a former deputy assistant secretary in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

I’m very interested in whether any member of the court elevates the issue of what, precisely, is on the table as the court considers the big question presented in these cases: whether higher-education institutions can continue to “use race as a factor in admissions.” Specifically, there is a potentially important distinction to be made between considering the racial status of an applicant and their identity — an applicant’s authentic, lived experience and perspective, evident through holistic review. (Even SFFA has said that applicants should be able to describe their experience of “overcoming discrimination” to which they’ve been subject.) As many amici [the friend-of-the-court briefs] representing higher-education organizations and institutions have explained, it is impossible to credibly conduct an authentic, complete holistic review of an applicant (regardless of their race) if that applicant cannot tell their full story, which may include facets of their background and interests associated with or informed by their racial or ethnic identity.

If this court is inclined to be directionally sympathetic to SFFA’s major ask — that it reverse decades of court precedent regarding the consideration of race in admissions to advance diversity interests — will there be limits and lines to be drawn that expressly preserve the integrity of holistic review, as described above, consistent with core, conservative constitutional principles?

Kimberly West-Faulcon, a professor of law at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who researches constitutional law and antidiscrimination law.

Since I do not expect many surprises in how the court splits on the constitutional interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause in the UNC case, I will be paying closest attention to whether the ruling in the SFFA v. Harvard case could further erode the efficacy of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which allows federal agencies to combat race discrimination by freezing federal funding to programs that exclude, deny benefits, or discriminate on the basis of race. Because I suspect there are several justices who wish to do to Title VI something similar to what the Supreme Court did in Shelby County v. Holder, when it gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, I will be paying particular attention to whether any of the right-leaning justices seem interested in reinterpreting Title VI in the Harvard case.

If the court leaves Title VI untouched, the fallout of this case is a bit more contained to the realm of selective university admissions. If it reinterprets Title VI, I think the future anti-civil-rights consequences of the ruling will reach far beyond who gets selected to attend colleges like Harvard.

LaWanda W.M. Ward, an assistant professor of education at Pennsylvania State University, who researches higher education, civil rights, and race and ethnicity.

For my dissertation I used Critical Race Theory to guide a critical discourse analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments for Bakke, Gratz, Grutter, Fisher I, and Fisher II. So, I am very interested in which justices will pose questions to the student intervenors’ counsel and what will those questions entail.

In the previous race-conscious-admissions cases before the Supreme Court, it denied student representation in the oral arguments. I think the students’ advocacy — that will include experiences of students of Asian heritage to maintain race-conscious admissions — could be compelling, especially to the conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was recently in higher education as a law professor. The court’s composition is different since it heard the Fisher cases, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia — very vocal and on vastly different ends of the constitutional debate — no longer on the bench. I’m most curious as to how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will ask questions regarding arguments for a race-evasive approach to race-conscious admissions, because in oral argument for Merrill v. Milligan she recently challenged the dominant race-evasive legal narrative that the Roberts Court has established regarding interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The University of Michigan oral arguments [in the Gratz and Grutter cases] occurred on April Fool’s Day in 2003, I hope Halloween — which I associate with Michael Myers — has no significance for the cases on Monday.

Nell Gluckman and Eric Hoover

Source link

October 28, 2022
‘Everybody Hates Them’: Why One Researcher Says Legacy Preferences in Admissions Must End Soon

Legacy preferences in admissions have been around forever. So they might seem as permanent as any monument. But as recent history reminds us, sometimes monuments must fall.

James S. Murphy puts it this way in a new report: “It is time for colleges and universities to catch up to the 1770s and say goodbye to what essentially amounts to an aristocratic system, in which a few children inherit a birthright advantage in a process that wraps itself up in the cloth of meritocracy.”

It’s baked into the mythology of America: We don’t believe in aristocracy. And we think education is, in fact, the antidote to aristocracy.

Murphy, a senior policy analyst at Education Reform Now, brings his researcher’s chops and writer’s voice to a longstanding debate: Is it right for colleges to give children of alumni a leg up in the admissions process? The question gained new urgency after the Supreme Court agreed this year to hear legal challenges to race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

If the highest court bars the use of race in admissions, as many experts predict it will, then selective colleges will have to reassess all of their admissions practices. And, Murphy argues, they will have an even greater moral obligation to scrap legacy preferences, which overwhelmingly benefit white, affluent students. Unless, of course, they want existing enrollment gaps between white and nonwhite students to grow even wider.

Opposition to legacy preferences dates all the way back to the 1960s, as Murphy explains. Since then, Democratic and Republican politicians have taken aim at them (if any T-shirt could unite the right and left, it just might say “Ban Legacy Admissions Now!”). Murphy traces that history and offers an illuminating snapshot of the present, including a tally of colleges using legacy preferences (nearly 800 in 2020, or about half of all institutions that completed the Common Data Set).

That’s a big number, but it’s getting smaller. In 2020, the Johns Hopkins University announced that it had stopped considering legacy status. The following year, Amherst College announced the same. Those institutions might seem like outliers, but Murphy’s research confirms that they’re not: Recent data, he found, show that dozens of colleges have abandoned the practice, only with little or no fanfare.

Colleges aren’t so transparent about their use of legacy preferences. It took an epic lawsuit to pry loose the revelation that, as the report notes, the children of alumni at Harvard with the highest academic ratings are more than twice as likely to get an acceptance than low-income applicants with similar ratings. Among Murphy’s recommendations: The U.S. Department of Education should require disaggregated data reporting on the use of legacy preferences at each college, allowing the public to see how the practice affects various subgroups of students: “If the Supreme Court strikes down the use of race-conscious admissions policies in its current term, as is expected, disaggregated data will be essential for tracking the effects of that ruling in the years to come.”

Recently, Murphy talked with The Chronicle about his research, the grip of aristocratic traditions on college admissions, and the intricacies of what he calls “a shameful practice.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Courtesy of James S. Murphy
James S. Murphy

Many experts predict that the Supreme Court will soon bar the use of race in admissions. If that happens, you write, it will be “absolutely necessary” for colleges to end legacy preferences. Why?

One thing the Harvard case did was expose the influence of a range of admissions practices in college admissions, including legacy preferences. The other thing it did was make very clear just how important diversity is to highly selective colleges. That’s not to say other colleges don’t care about diversity. It’s just that it’s a more pointed issue at highly selective colleges, because the standards they set are very tilted in favor of wealth. And in American society, wealth is tilted toward white students. So it’s important to say that places like Harvard really have a strong commitment to racial and ethnic diversity. I don’t doubt that in any way whatsoever.

One of the planks of the Students for Fair Admissions case was that Harvard hasn’t taken enough race-neutral steps to protect diversity or to enhance diversity on campus. While I think the SFFA argument about race is wrong, I do think they’re right that Harvard could go further. So if campuses are going to maintain the level of diversity they have, let alone enhance it, they’re absolutely going to have to chip away anything that gets in the way of diversity. And there’s just no debate about this: The numbers are there in the Harvard case, and they show clearly that legacy preferences favor white students.

So a major shift in context — a land without race-conscious admissions — could have ripple effects.

Six months ago, I don’t know that I thought that the likely outcome of the Harvard and UNC cases was going to have much impact on the use of legacy preferences. But as I thought about it, two things became apparent. One is that, from a practical perspective, colleges are going to have to look at anything they can to free up spots that are currently reserved for largely white, wealthy students.

But then there’s the other ethical question, or the question of public perception. Come next June, if the Supreme Court says that colleges can no longer take into consideration a student’s race, which is an important part of a person’s whole being, it is almost impossible to imagine that colleges will then stand up and say, “Oh, but we’re fine with giving a preference to the children of our alumni.” It just becomes impossible, I think, to to say that without blushing, right?

As you make clear in your brief, legacy preferences are unpopular, among the general public and among admissions leaders, who give them a major thumbs down.

One of the findings of this study, not a big surprise at all, was that people hate legacy preferences. Seventy-five percent of Americans said legacy status should not be a factor in admissions, according to a Pew survey, which was reinforced by a recent Washington Post survey. The more surprising finding was the Inside Higher Education survey, where a large majority of admissions directors did not support the use of legacy preferences. So everybody hates them, even people working in colleges, except for alumni.

I think the Supreme Court decision is going to give college presidents and boards the cover they need to do something that they know is the correct thing to do, and that they have probably wanted to do for a while. I don’t think that the presidents of Stanford, Yale, and Princeton looked at Johns Hopkins’s decision to drop legacy preferences and said, “Oh, what a terrible idea.” I suspect they were deeply jealous of their bravery.

One eye-opening finding of yours is that 102 colleges have stopped considering legacy status since 2015, which, in most cases, seems to have happened rather quietly. Did that number surprise you? And what do you make of this trend?

It did surprise me. The reason I wanted to look at that is because there’s a myth that legacy preferences are an intractable problem, that they’re so beneficial for universities that they’re going to fight to the death to hold on to them.

The reality is I found that 80 percent of the 64 uberselective colleges — colleges that admit 25 percent or less of their applicants — do indeed offer legacy preferences. So when when Amherst did it, we were like, “OK, cool. But what about all these other liberal-arts colleges?” When Johns Hopkins did it, we were like “Cool. But what about all these other places?”

Most places that drop legacy preferences don’t do it noisily. Going through the data, I identified 102 colleges, and a ton of them were state institutions. In many cases, the flagships had dropped the practice quietly, and did it with some thoughtfulness and consideration, because they had to tell somebody to go in and change the box from considered to not considered. That was really surprising to me, and it pushes back against this notion that this is an intractable practice, that we’re never going to get rid of it.

Well, over 100 institutions have done so, they just haven’t all done so quite so loudly. I would like them to be louder and clearer about it. But that number also gave me hope that it would inspire similar confidence, especially in our public institutions. It’s shocking that any public college or university would provide a legacy preference. That’s a betrayal of their particular mandate to serve students in their state, where taxpayers are supporting them.

Some college leaders have described legacy preferences as a means of building and sustaining a special kind of community over time, one that helps nourish the institution, maintain bonds, and so on. Duke’s president recently described this in terms of “family.” What’s your response to this rationale?

It’s, at best, laughable. But honestly, I think it’s kind of grotesque because, as I write in the report, you’re talking about an institution that has a lot of wealth, that has a lot of power, that has a continuing influence on the broader society. When you confuse institutions like that with family, you’re not talking about college anymore, you’re talking about aristocracy.

It’s baked into the mythology of America: We don’t believe in aristocracy. And we think education is, in fact, the antidote to aristocracy. This notion that by using legacy preferences, colleges are preserving a community or a family runs right in the face of that.

I want to circle back to something you mention in the report: The tendency of some admitted legacy students who wonder if they deserved to get in. Does this reveal or suggest a truth about legacy preferences on a human level?

There are many reasons to get rid of legacy preferences, and the basic question of justice and fairness is the main one. But I also think legacy preferences can be bad for the beneficiaries, and there’s been reporting on this. If you have been admitted knowing that your father and mother grandparents went there, and knowing that this helps you get in, there’s going to be lingering doubts. Do I belong here? Did I only get in because my parents went here?

All college admissions officers, presidents boards and trustees want students to feel like they belong on campus, right? They want them to feel part of it. Let’s go back to that word “community.” The irony is that legacy preferences can undermine that very principle of community, of family, of belonging, that defenders of the practice are trying to invoke as a reason to use legacy preference. It can have the opposite effect.

So it seems like the bottom-line question here is this: Knowing what we know in 2022, can an institution truly claim that it stands for racial equity and socioeconomic diversity if it gives preferences to legacies?

I hope that is the question they ask themselves. And I hope the answer they arrive at is No. Because the correct answer is that you cannot possibly stand up for this preference if you also think your mission is to create a diverse campus that will benefit every single student on that campus and prepare them for the workplace.

Eric Hoover

Source link

October 27, 2022
Mikael Damberg, Swedish Minister of Enterprise and Innovation to Open SACC Summit 2017

SACC Summit is the most followed Swedish American conference of the year. Professor Robert Langer, former CTO of Volvo, Professor Jeff Karp, and renowned business leaders to present on biotech, self driving cars, Swedish American relations, and sustainability.

Press Release
–

updated: Oct 23, 2017

Boston, MA, October 23, 2017 (Newswire.com)
–
The Swedish-American Chamber of Commerce New England (SACC-NE) together with SACC-USA will arrange the annual flagship business and networking event in Boston on October 25th, 2017 at 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA. SACC Summit is the biggest and most followed Swedish American event of the year in the country, followed by Swedish industry and government officials alike. Executive Directors, Chairmen, and Board Directors of the 20 regional SACC chambers will fly in from across the United States to attend talks and panel discussions hosted by leaders in biotech, food tech sustainability, innovation, investment, academia, and self driving trucks.

“This is a unique opportunity to get the latest insights in the Swedish and American bilateral trade relationship as well as to meet and network with decision makers. Everyone that is interested in business through innovation should participate at this event in Boston.” Johan Marcus, President of SACC-USA, says. “SACC Summit 2017 serves as a powerful testament to the collaborative business bridge we have worked hard to forge between Boston and Sweden over the years. We are looking forward to introducing our regional SACC chambers, Swedish government leaders, renowned executives, and entrepreneurs to all that the city of Boston and the business community here has to offer,” says Christina Björnström, President of SACC-NE.

Among the speakers: Mikael Damberg, Minister for Enterprise and Innovation in Sweden; Robert Langer, Professor, MIT; Torsten Jansson, serial entrepreneur and CEO, New Wave Group; Torbjörn Holmström, former CTO and CEO to Volvo; Jeff Karp, Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School; Elizabeth Steele, Director of Economic Development and Global Affairs, MassBio; Adam Piandes, Forbes Reporter and Leadership Coach; Myra White, Professor, Harvard Business School.

About SACC-USA: SACC-USA is the second largest European chamber of commerce in the U.S. with 20 regional chambers. Our mission is to promote trade and investment between Sweden and the United States, www.sacc-usa.org.

Source: Swedish American Chamber of Commerce New England

Source link

October 23, 2017