ReportWire

Tag: iab-college planning

  • Affirmative Action Fast Facts | CNN

    Affirmative Action Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here is some background information about affirmative action as well as a few notable court cases.

    Affirmative action policies focus on improving opportunities for groups of people, like women and minorities, who have been historically excluded in United States’ society. The initial emphasis was on education and employment. President John F. Kennedy was the first president to use the term in an executive order.

    Supporters argue that affirmative action is necessary to ensure racial and gender diversity in education and employment. Critics state that it is unfair and causes reverse discrimination.

    Racial quotas are considered unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

    The state of Texas replaced its affirmative action plan with a percentage plan that guarantees the top 10% of high-school graduates a spot in any state university in Texas. California and Florida have similar programs.

    1954 – The US Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, rules that the “separate but equal” doctrine violates the Constitution.

    1961 – President Kennedy creates the Council on Equal Opportunity in an executive order. This ensures that federal contractors hire people regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

    1964 The Civil Rights Act renders discrimination illegal in the workplace.

    1978 – In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a notable reverse discrimination case, the Supreme Court rules that colleges cannot use racial quotas because it violates the Equal Protection Clause. As one factor for admission, however, race can be used.

    1995The University of Michigan rejects the college application of Jennifer Gratz, a top high school student in suburban Detroit who is white.

    October 14, 1997 – Gratz v. Bollinger, et al., is filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan. The University of Michigan is sued by white students, including Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, who claim the undergraduate and law school affirmative action policies using race and/or gender as a factor in admissions is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    December 3, 1997 – A similar case, Grutter v. Bollinger, is filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan. Barbara Grutter, denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School, claims that other applicants, with lower test scores and grades, were given an unfair advantage due to race.

    December 2000 – The judge in the Gratz v. Bollinger case rules that the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy does not violate the standards set by the Supreme Court.

    March 2001 – The judge in the Grutter v. Bollinger case rules the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy is unconstitutional.

    December 2001 – The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals hears appeals in both University of Michigan cases.

    May 14, 2002 The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the district court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.

    January 17, 2003 – The administration of President George W. Bush files a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court, opposing the University of Michigan’s affirmative action program.

    April 1, 2003 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the two cases. US Solicitor General Theodore Olson offers arguments in support of the plaintiffs.

    June 23, 2003 – The Supreme Court rules on Grutter v. Bollinger that the University of Michigan Law School may give preferential treatment to minorities during the admissions process. The Court upholds the law school policy by a vote of five to four.

    June 23, 2003 – In Gratz v. Bollinger, the undergraduate policy in which a point system gave specific “weight” to minority applicants is overturned six to three.

    December 22, 2003 – The Supreme Court rules that race can be a factor in universities’ admission programs but it cannot be an overriding factor. This decision affects the Grutter and Gratz cases.

    November 7, 2006The Michigan electorate strikes down affirmative action by approving a proposition barring affirmative action in public education, employment, or contracting.

    January 31, 2007 – After the Supreme Court sends the case back to district court; the case is dismissed. Gratz and Hamacher settle for $10,000 in administrative costs, but do not receive damages.

    2008 – Abigail Noel Fisher, a white woman, sues the University of Texas. She argues that the university should not use race as a factor in admission policies that favor African-American and Hispanic applicants over whites and Asian-Americans.

    July 1, 2011 An appeals court overturns Michigan’s 2006 ban on the use of race and/or gender as a factor in admissions or hiring practices.

    November 15, 2012 – The US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals throws out Michigan’s 2006 ban on affirmative action in college admissions and public hiring, declaring it unconstitutional.

    June 24, 2013 – The Supreme Court sends the University of Texas case back to the lower court for further review without ruling.

    October 15, 2013 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case concerning Michigan’s 2006 law on affirmative action.

    April 22, 2014 – In a six to two ruling, the Supreme Court upholds Michigan’s ban of using racial criteria in college admissions.

    July 15, 2014 – The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholds the use of race by the University of Texas as a factor in undergraduate admissions to promote diversity on campus. The vote is two to one.

    November 17, 2014 – Students for Fair Admissions sues Harvard University, alleging Harvard intentionally discriminates against Asian-Americans. Students for Fair Admissions is run by Edward Blum, a conservative advocate, who sought Asian-Americans rejected by Harvard.

    December 9, 2015 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the University of Texas case regarding race as a factor in admissions policies.

    June 23, 2016 – The US Supreme Court upholds the Affirmative Action program by a vote of four to three with Justice Elena Kagan taking no part in the consideration. The ruling allows the limited use of affirmative action policies by schools.

    October 15, 2018 – The lawsuit against Harvard filed in 2014 by Students for Fair Admissions goes to trial.

    February 2019 – Texas Tech University enters an agreement with the Department of Education to stop considering race and/or national origin as a factor in its admissions process, concluding a 14-year-long investigation into the school’s use of affirmative action.

    October 1, 2019 – US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs upholds Harvard’s admissions process in the Students for Fair Admissions case, ruling that while Harvard’s admissions process is “not perfect,” she would not “dismantle a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster, solely because it could do better.”

    November 12, 2020 – A Boston-based US appeals court rejects an appeal brought by the Students for Fair Admissions group.

    January 24, 2022 – The US Supreme Court announces it will reconsider race-based affirmative action in college admissions. The justices will hear challenges to policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that use students’ race among many criteria to decide who should gain a coveted place in an entering class. On June 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court says colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis for granting admission.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • She used hidden cameras to help students cheat exams. Now she’s wanted by Interpol | CNN

    She used hidden cameras to help students cheat exams. Now she’s wanted by Interpol | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Think “international manhunt” and the image that likely springs to mind is that of a hardened criminal like a murderer, bank robber or billion-dollar fraudster – not the middle-aged boss of a high school tuition center.

    But that’s who’s at the center of a Red Notice issued this week by the International Criminal Police Organization, or Interpol, which facilitates police cooperation between 194 countries.

    Poh Yuan Nie, 57, is thought to have fled Singapore after masterminding an elaborate cheating scam during the Southeast Asian country’s annual GCE O Level examinations, which students take during their final year of high school.

    Poh failed to surrender to police after a court sentenced her to four years in prison for running the scam, in which she and three of her tutors fed answers to students using a system of bodycams, earphones and bluetooth devices.

    Private tuition centers are big business in the wealthy city-state where the pressure for students to perform well can be overwhelming and it is not unusual for monthly fees at established private tuition centers to cost up to 2,000 Singapore dollars ($1,500).

    According to early court documents, Poh, 57, and her three accomplices – her niece Fiona Poh Min, ex-girlfriend Tan Jia Yan and a Chinese national named Feng Riwen – were each paid 8,000 Singapore dollars ($6,100) by a man from China to help six students aged between 17 and 20 – also from China – pass the GCE exams in 2016 so they could enter local colleges.

    The payment would have been fully refunded if the students did not pass the exams.

    Under Poh’s instructions, the six students wore skin-colored earphones and taped mobile phones and bluetooth devices to their bodies so that they could be fed answers by Tan who posed as a private student sitting the same test papers.

    With the help of a hidden camera phone taped to her chest, Tan livestreamed the questions to Poh and the two other tutors back at the tuition center, who then worked out the answers and fed them to the students.

    They were rumbled when an exam invigilator heard unusual noises coming from one of the students, who came clean when questioned.

    After a year-long trial that ended in 2020, Poh was convicted on 27 counts of cheating and sentenced to four years’ jail. Her Red Notice on Interpol included a mugshot and listed her charges of “abetment to commit cheating.”

    Singapore police, who requested the notice from Interpol, said Poh had been due to begin her jail term in September, but failed to surrender herself. Her three accomplices are all currently serving their respective prison terms, police said.

    “Poh was convicted for a series of cheating offenses, having conspired with students to cheat in the 2016 GCE O Level examinations,” the Singapore Police Force said in a statement, adding that local warrants had also been issued for her arrest.

    “She was ordered in September 2022 to surrender herself to serve her imprisonment term but she did not do so.”

    According to Interpol, global law enforcement units are requested to locate and arrest people under Red Notices – pending extradition, surrender or other legal actions.

    The case has put the spotlight on a school system that is ranked among the world’s best and is known for its competitiveness.

    Singapore’s government has implemented a raft of reforms in recent years aimed at easing the mental burden on students who can face immense pressure to achieve good grades.

    The GCE O Level exams can be a particularly stressful time, as they define a student’s entire high school performance and determine which local college or vocational institute they can go to. The exams, known in full as General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level, are national tests in mathematics, science, languages and humanities.

    They are conducted jointly by the Cambridge Assessment International Examination and Singapore’s Ministry of Education. They are not the same as the annual British GCSE examinations.

    GCE exams are usually taken by students aged 16 and 17 and are also open to private candidates. Every year around 30,000 students sit the exams, according to MOE estimates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link