ReportWire

Tag: university of north carolina

  • Bill Belichick’s Carolina Train Wreck

    [ad_1]

    In November, the fact that Carolina beat Stanford was overshadowed by a nugget, in the Post, that a beef between Hudson and one of Belichick’s daughters-in-law, Jen, had reached a point where Jen had screamed at Jordon in Bill’s office, calling her “batshit crazy” and accusing her of “fucking twisting” Bill’s brain. Shortly thereafter, Belichick was seen attending an adult-cheerleading event where Hudson, wearing a high pony and a red scrunchie, was competing. A photo of him sitting in the audience, looking miserable, went viral.

    WRAL was now reporting that nearly twenty per cent of U.N.C’s players had been ticketed for reckless driving or speeding, and that a “significant” number of them were Belichick’s recruits. One, Thad Dixon, a star transfer who had played under Belichick’s son Steve at the University of Washington, was cited for doing ninety-three in a fifty zone. At a presser, Belichick wearily said, “We’ve addressed it.”

    Generations of reporters have learned that it is nearly impossible to extract personal insight from Belichick. His memoir, “The Art of Winning,” which was published in May, reads like somebody made him write a term paper about leadership. The monotony of his curmudgeonly gray flame and supposed aversion to distraction is part of why Belichick scholars went on alert when he uncharacteristically surfaced on social media, with Hudson, playing mermaid angler and yoga daddy. What, I wondered, would Belichick’s best-known biographer, the late David Halberstam, have made of all this?

    Halberstam edited the Harvard Crimson and distinguished himself young, at the Times, by winning the 1964 Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting for coverage of the Vietnam War. He went on to publish nearly two dozen books on politics, civil rights, and professional sports—Bill Walton and the Portland Trail Blazers; the Yankees–Red Sox rivalry. In 2005, the Patriots were in the midst of a historic run, having won three of the last four Super Bowls. A friend of Belichick called Halberstam to suggest him as a new book subject.

    Both Halberstam and Belichick owned property on Nantucket, but had never met. Halberstam invited Belichick and his then-wife, Debby, whom Belichick had known since high school, over to dinner. As it turned out, Belichick wasn’t sold on the idea of a book, though he did admire Halberstam’s work, especially “The Best and the Brightest,” about Vietnam. According to Halberstam, Belichick agreed only after the project was framed in terms of lineage and learning.

    Much of what we know about Belichick appeared first in that book, “The Education of a Coach.” Belichick’s paternal grandparents immigrated to the U.S. from what is now Croatia. His mother, Jeannette, was a languages scholar of English descent; she learned Croatian to communicate with the relatives of her husband, Steve. The family worked in “the coal mines of western Pennsylvania, the steel mills of eastern Ohio,” Halberstam once told PBS. Steve “got out and made it because he was a very good, albeit relatively small, high school running back, and that got him to Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, and a coach picked up on him and understood that he was rough, crusty, but smart as could be, hardworking, and that everything you asked him to do, he would do, and more. And the values of that home—of nothing to be wasted, of maximizing your talents—he passed on to his son in a much more affluent America.”

    Bill was born in 1952, in Nashville, where his father briefly worked as an assistant football coach at Vanderbilt University, and he grew up in Annapolis, Maryland, where Steve spent thirty-three years scouting for the Navy’s team, a job that he was able to hold for so long, in a profession marked by turnover, because the Naval Academy gave him tenure as a P.E. instructor. Father took son to work; the future Hall of Famer quarterback Roger Staubach tossed the kid passes. Belichick was a small child when he began absorbing the art of breaking down game film. He played football and lacrosse at Annapolis High School, where he met Debby, who captained the cheerleaders. After graduating, he spent a year at Phillips Academy, in Andover, Massachusetts, to improve his grades and his college prospects. Playing center on the football team, he met Ernie Adams, a brainy senior from Brookline, Massachusetts, who played guard and was a fan of “Football Scouting Methods,” a book, published in 1962, that Steve had dictated to Jeannette with a level of density and detail that only other football obsessives could love.

    [ad_2]

    Paige Williams

    Source link

  • March Madness: Alabama ends UNC’s run in 89-87 Sweet 16 thriller

    March Madness: Alabama ends UNC’s run in 89-87 Sweet 16 thriller

    [ad_1]

    RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) — North Carolina’s NCAA tournament run ended Thursday night in an 89-87 loss to Alabama.

    It was a scintillating game, played in Los Angeles at a high pace with plenty of drama. In the end, the Crimson Tide simply outlasted the Tar Heels.

    Grant Nelson converted a go-ahead three-point play with 38 seconds remaining to lift Alabama past the top-seeded Tar Heels.

    Nelson finished with a season-high 24 points, 19 in the second half, and he blocked RJ Davis’ attempt at a tying layup after giving Alabama the lead. Rylan Griffen added 19 points, tying his career high with five 3-pointers, and Aaron Estrada also scored 19 for the fourth-seeded Crimson Tide (24-11).

    UNC guard RJ Davis shoots past Alabama guard Rylan Griffen on Thursday in Los Angeles.

    Ashley Landis

    After Nelson blocked Davis’ shot with 25 seconds left, Davis furiously dribbled around before missing a layup and the Tar Heels got called for a shot-clock violation with 8 seconds left. They were forced to foul, sending Nelson to the line. He calmly made both for an 89-85 lead.

    Armando Bacot scored inside with 1 second left, leaving North Carolina trailing 89-87. The Tar Heels fouled Nelson again with 0.9 seconds left. He missed both and time expired on the Tar Heels.

    Bacot finished with 19 points and 12 rebounds in his final game for UNC, which ended the season 29-8. Cormac Ryan had 17 points and made five 3-pointers and Davis had 16 points.

    For Davis, it ended a splendid season in a nightmarish fashion. The ACC Player of the Year had his worst shooting night in memory, missing all nine of his 3-point attempts and making just 4-of-20 from the floor. Half his points came at the free throw line, where he made 8-of-9.

    At times, UNC coach Hubert Davis looked like he was still playing for his alma mater, where he starred from 1988-92 under Hall of Famer Dean Smith. Davis dashed up and down the sideline in his white sneakers, gesturing and yelling and taking his glasses on and off as he lived each play through his team.

    UNC’s Armando Bacot shoots amid an Army of Alabama defenders on Thursday in the Sweet 16 in Los Angeles.

    Ashley Landis

    Alabama trailed 54-46 at halftime. Nelson and Sam Walters combined to score nine of Alabama’s first 13 points to take a 59-57 lead.

    The Tar Heels struggled early when big man Bacot picked up his third foul five minutes in, but they tied it at 59-all on a basket by Harrison Ingram.

    “I thought in the second half, we came out a little flat,” Bacot said.

    Nelson, Estrada and Griffen teamed to score 21 of Alabama’s next 23 points that produced an 82-77 lead. Nelson ran off seven in a row, capped by a 3-pointer.

    Carolina scored eight in a row, including six straight by Davis, to take its last lead, 85-82.

    North Carolina guard Elliot Cadeau is fouled by Alabama forward Mouhamed Dioubate on Thursday at the Sweet 16 in Los Angeles.

    Ryan Sun

    The Tar Heels opened the game on a 19-9 run for their largest lead of a half in which there were eight ties and seven lead changes.

    Mark Sears went on a tear, scoring nine points – hitting a 3-pointer and turning to blow a kiss to the crowd – to help the Tide lead 39-34. Sears finished with 18 points.

    North Carolina regained control with a 20-7 spurt to end the half ahead 54-46. Ryan and Ingram had two 3-pointers each and Bacot dunked, slithered around Mohamed Wague for a layup and scored off his own steal.

    “At the end of the day, it boiled down to them making more shots than we did,” Bacot said.

    – BOXSCORE

    Alabama moves to the Elite Eight to face another ACC opponent in Clemson. Both Alabama and Clemson are in the Elite Eight for only the second time in their school histories.

    The Tide face sixth-seeded Clemson on Saturday for a berth in the Final Four.

    The Tigers got 18 points from Chase Hunter and converted a three-point play with 25.7 seconds remaining as Clemson beat Arizona 77-72 in the first West Region semifinal on Thursday night.

    Clemson players celebrate after eliminating Arizona on Thursday night.

    Ryan Sun

    PJ Hall added 17 points for the Tigers.

    “We’ve battled a lot of things. This is a great moment for Clemson basketball,” Coach Brad Brownell said.

    NC State

    Two weeks ago, 11th-seeded 14 NC State was on the outside of the tournament bubble and the dream run will continue against No. 2 seed Marquette.

    Their game is on Friday at 7:09 p.m. on CBS.

    “It’s been unbelievable actually like, it’s been something you’ve been dreaming of since you were a kid,” NC State point guard Michael O-Connell said Thursday. “These are the moments you kind of live for and you’ve been working for.”

    The Wolfpack won its first basketball national title against Marquette in 1974. That team was led by David Thompson and Tommy Burleson and coached by Norm Sloan.

    The Wolfpack’s seven-game win streak is the longest of head coach Kevin Keatts’ tenure.

    “Honestly, it’s still, it hasn’t really all sunk in,” said NC State forward Ben Middlebrooks. “Every time after we win a game it’s on to the next one so we’re all still kind of living in the moment and trying to enjoy it and trying to stay focused.”

    “We’re excited to be here in Dallas,” Marquette coach Shaka Smart said Thursday. “Obviously, NC State presents a lot of challenges. They’re playing terrific basketball. I’ve known Kevin Keatts for a long, long time, have a ton of respect for him, so it will be an exciting opportunity for us tomorrow.”

    The Blue Devils and Wolfpack practiced in Dallas on Thursday ahead of big matchups with Houston and Marquette, respectively.

    Duke

    The No.4 seed Duke Blue Devils are headed to the Sweet 16 to face No. 1 seed Houston, which narrowly avoided an upset at the hands of in-state rival Texas A&M on Sunday night.

    “Feeling great, feeling confident going into the weekend with this team,” said Duke’s Jared McCain. “I’m just excited to play again.”

    Duke reached the second weekend of March Madness for the 27th time in 39 tournaments since the event expanded to 64 teams in 1985.

    “I think anytime you look at a really good defensive team, but for Houston, look, they, probably, if not the best defensive team in the country, they’re right there,” Duke coach Jon Scheyer said. “And you have to talk about their effort. Their effort is terrific.”

    One thing that got the Blue Devils this far was increasing their defensive intensity and holding their two opponents so far (Vermont and James Madison) well below their season scoring averages.

    “I think our guys have shown throughout the year we’re a really good defensive team,” Scheyer said. “Sometimes when you have those couple of games that don’t go your way, you know, our guys, they don’t have to, you have to get over it quickly.”

    The two teams will face off in the South Region on Friday at 9:39 p.m. on CBS.

    “Any time you can get away, get out of the first week of the NCAA tournament, it’s a blessing,” said Duke center Mark Mitchell. “You’ve got to be proud of it, but obviously, we still have got things to work on.”

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2024 WTVD-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    WTVD

    Source link

  • The Big COVID Question for Hospitals This Fall

    The Big COVID Question for Hospitals This Fall

    [ad_1]

    Back in the spring, around the end of the COVID-19 public-health emergency, hospitals around the country underwent a change in dress code. The masks that staff had been wearing at work for more than three years vanished, in some places overnight. At UChicago Medicine, where masking policies softened at the end of May, Emily Landon, the executive medical director of infection prevention and control, fielded hate mail from colleagues, some chiding her for waiting too long to lift the requirement, others accusing her of imperiling the immunocompromised. At Vanderbilt University Medical Center, which did away with masking in April, ahead of many institutions, Tom Talbot, the chief hospital epidemiologist, was inundated with thank-yous. “People were ready; they were tired,” he told me. “They’d been asking for several months before that, ‘Can we not stop?’”

    But across hospitals and policies, infection-prevention experts shared one sentiment: They felt almost certain that the masks would need to return, likely by the end of the calendar year. The big question was exactly when.

    For some hospitals, the answer is now. In recent weeks, as COVID-19 hospitalizations have been rising nationwide, stricter masking requirements have returned to a smattering of hospitals in Massachusetts, California, and New York. But what’s happening around the country is hardly uniform. The coming respiratory-virus season will be the country’s first after the end of the public-health emergency—its first, since the arrival of COVID, without crisis-caliber funding set aside, routine tracking of community spread, and health-care precautions already in place. After years of fighting COVID in concert, hospitals are back to going it alone.

    A return to masking has a clear logic in hospitals. Sick patients come into close contact; medical procedures produce aerosols. “It’s a perfect storm for potential transmission of microbes,” Costi David Sifri, the director of hospital epidemiology at UVA Health, told me. Hospitals are on the front lines of disease response: They, more than nearly any other place, must prioritize protecting society’s vulnerable. And with one more deadly respiratory virus now in winter’s repertoire, precautions should logically increase in lockstep. But “there is no clear answer on how to do this right,” says Cameron Wolfe, an infectious-disease physician at Duke. Americans have already staked out their stances on masks, and now hospitals have to operate within those confines.


    When hospitals moved away from masking this spring, they each did so at their own pace—and settled on very different baselines. Like many other hospitals in Massachusetts, Brigham and Women’s Hospital dropped its mask mandate on May 12, the day the public-health emergency expired; “it was a noticeable difference, just walking around the hospital” that day, Meghan Baker, a hospital epidemiologist for both Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, told me. UVA Health, meanwhile, weaned staff off of universal masking over the course of about 10 weeks.

    Most masks at the Brigham are now donned on only a case-by-case basis: when a patient has active respiratory symptoms, say, or when a health-care worker has been recently sick or exposed to the coronavirus. Staff also still mask around the same subset of vulnerable patients that received extra protection before the pandemic, including bone-marrow-transplant patients and others who are highly immunocompromised, says Chanu Rhee, an associate hospital epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. UVA Health, meanwhile, is requiring masks for everyone in the hospital’s highest-risk areas—among them, certain intensive-care units, as well as cancer, transplant, and infusion wards. And although Brigham patients can always request that their providers mask, at UVA, all patients are asked upon admission whether they’d like hospital staff to mask.

    Nearly every expert I spoke with told me they expected that masks would at some point come back. But unlike the early days of the pandemic, “there is basically no guidance from the top now,” Saskia Popescu, an epidemiologist and infection-prevention expert at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, said. The CDC still has a webpage with advice on when to mask. Those recommendations are tailored to the general public, though—and don’t advise covering up until COVID hospital admissions go “way high, when the horse has well and truly left the barn,” Landon, at UChicago, told me. “In health care, we need to do something before that”—tamping down transmission prior to wards filling up.

    More specific advice could still emerge from the CDC, or individual state health departments. But going forward, the assumption is that “each hospital is supposed to have its own general plan,” Rhee told me. (I reached out to the CDC repeatedly about whether it might update its infection-prevention-guidance webpage for COVID—last retooled in May—but didn’t receive a response.)

    Which leaves hospitals with one of two possible paths. They could schedule a start to masking season, based on when they estimate cases might rise—or they could react to data as they come in, tying masking policies to transmission bumps. With SARS-CoV-2 still so unpredictable, many hospitals are opting for the latter. That also means defining a true case rise—“what I think everybody is struggling with right now,” Rhee said. There is no universal definition, still, for what constitutes a surge. And with more immunity layered over the population, fewer infections are resulting in severe disease and death—even, to a limited extent, long COVID—making numbers that might have triggered mitigations just a year or two ago now less urgent catalysts.

    Further clouding the forecast is the fact that much of the data that experts once relied on to monitor COVID in the community have faded away. In most parts of the country, COVID cases are no longer regularly tallied; people are either not testing, or testing only at home. Wastewater surveillance and systems that track all influenza-like illnesses could provide some support. But that’s not a whole lot to go on, especially in parts of the country such as Tennessee, where sewage isn’t as closely tracked, Tom Talbot, of Vanderbilt, told me.

    Some hospitals have turned instead to in-house stats. At Duke—which has adopted a mitigation policy that’s very similar to UVA’s—Wolfe has mulled pulling the more-masking lever when respiratory viruses account for 2 to 4 percent of emergency and urgent-care visits; at UVA, Sifri has considered taking action once 1 or 2 percent of employees call out sick, with the aim of staunching sickness and preserving staff. “It really doesn’t take much to have an impact on our ability to maintain operations,” Sifri told me. But “I don’t know if those are the right numbers.” Plus, internal metrics are now tricky for the same reasons they’ve gotten shaky elsewhere, says Xiaoyan Song, the chief infection-control officer at Children’s National Hospital, in Washington, D.C. Screening is no longer routine for patients, skewing positivity stats; even sniffly health-care workers, several experts told me, are now less eager to test and report.

    For hospitals that have maintained a more masky baseline, scenarios in which universal masking returns are a little easier to envision and enact. At UChicago Medicine, Landon and her colleagues have developed a color-coded system that begins at teal—masking for high-risk patients, patients who request masked care, and anyone with symptoms, plus masking in high-risk areas—and goes through everyone-mask-up-everywhere red; their team plans to meet weekly to assess the situation, based on a variety of community and internal metrics, and march their masking up or down. Wolfe, of Duke, told me that his hospital “wanted to reserve a little bit of extra masking quite intentionally,” so that any shift back toward stricter standards would feel like less of a shock: Habits are hard to break and then reform.

    Other hospitals that have been living mostly maskless for months, though, have a longer road back to universal masking, and staff members who might not be game for the trek. Should masks need to return at the Brigham or Dana-Farber, for instance, “I suspect the reaction will be mixed,” Baker told me. “So we really are trying to be judicious.” The hospital might try to preserve some maskless zones in offices and waiting rooms, for instance, or lower-risk rooms. And at Children’s National, which has also largely done away with masks, Song plans to follow the local health department’s lead. “Once D.C. Health requires hospitals to reimplement the universal-masking policy,” she told me, “we will be implementing it too.”

    Other mitigations are on the table. Several hospital epidemiologists told me they expected to reimplement some degree of asymptomatic screening for various viruses around the same time they reinstate masks. But measures such as visiting restrictions are a tougher call. Wolfe is reluctant to pull that lever before he absolutely has to: Going through a hospital stay alone is one of the “harder things for patients to endure.”


    A bespoke approach to hospital masking isn’t impractical. COVID waves won’t happen synchronously across communities, and so perhaps neither should policies. But hospitals that lack the resources to keep tabs on viral spread will likely be at a disadvantage, and Popescu told me she worries that “we’re going to see significant transmission” in the very institutions least equipped to handle such influx. Even the best-resourced places may hit stumbling blocks: Many are still reeling from three-plus years of crisis and are dealing with nursing shortages and worker burnout.

    Coordination hasn’t entirely gone away. In North Carolina, Duke is working with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University to shift policies in tandem; in Washington State, several regional health-care organizations have pledged to align their masking policies. And the Veterans Health Administration—where masking remains required in high-risk units—has developed a playbook for augmenting mitigations across its many facilities, which together make up the country’s largest integrated health-care system, says Shereef Elnahal, the undersecretary of Veterans Affairs for health. Still, institutions can struggle to move in sync: Attitudes on masking aren’t exactly universal across health-care providers, even within a hospital.

    The country’s experience with COVID has made hospitals that much more attuned to the impacts of infectious disease. Before the pandemic began, Talbot said, masking was a rarity in his hospital, even around high-risk patients; many employees would go on shifts sick. “We were pretty complacent about influenza,” he told me. “People could come to work and spread it.” Now hospital workers hold themselves to a stricter standard. At the same time, they have become intimately attuned to the drawbacks of constant masking: Some have complained that masks interfere with communication, especially for patients who are young or hard of hearing, or who have a language barrier. “I do think you lose a little bit of that personal bonding,” Talbot said. And prior to the lifting of universal masking at Vanderbilt, he said, some staff were telling him that one out of 10 times they’d ask a patient or family to mask, the exchange would “get antagonistic.”

    When lifting mandates, many of the hospital epidemiologists I spoke with were careful to message to colleagues that the situation was fluid: “We’re suspending universal masking temporarily,” as Landon put it to her colleagues. Still, she admits that she felt uncomfortable returning to a low-mask norm at all. (When she informally polled nearly two dozen other hospital epidemiologists around the country in the spring, most of them told her that they felt the same.) Health-care settings aren’t meant to look like the rest of the world; they are places where precautions are expected to go above and beyond. COVID’s arrival had cemented masks’ ability to stop respiratory spread in close quarters; removing them felt to Landon like pushing those data aside, and putting the onus on patients—particularly those already less likely to advocate for themselves—to account for their own protection.

    She can still imagine a United States in which a pandemic-era response solidified, as it has in several other countries, into a peacetime norm: where wearing masks would have remained as routine as donning gloves while drawing blood, a tangible symbol of pandemic lessons learned. Instead, many American hospitals will be entering their fourth COVID winter looking a lot like they did in early 2020—when the virus surprised us, when our defenses were down.

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • UNC graduate student arrested on murder charge in fatal shooting of faculty member, police say | CNN

    UNC graduate student arrested on murder charge in fatal shooting of faculty member, police say | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The suspect in the fatal shooting of a faculty member at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on Monday is a graduate student at the school, UNC police said in a news release Tuesday.

    Tailei Qi, the grad student, is in custody on charges of first-degree murder charge and having a gun on education property, according to police.

    The victim was identified as Zijie Yan, an associate professor in the department of Applied Physical Sciences who had worked for UNC since 2019.

    Qi was a grad student in the same department and Yan was his faculty adviser, according to Qi’s UNC biographical page, which has been deleted but is available on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. Qi entered the school in 2022 and listed his previous education as Louisiana State University and Wuhan University, the page said.

    Police still are looking for the weapon and the motive behind the fatal shooting.

    The early afternoon shooting sent the university of more than 30,000 students into lockdown for hours. The suspect was detained about 90 minutes after the gunfire interrupted activities at the school’s Caudill Laboratories, a chemistry studies building.

    “We want to ensure that we gather every piece of evidence to determine exactly what happened here today and why it happened,” UNC Police Chief Brian James said at a news conference Monday evening. “It is too early in this investigation to know a motive for the shooting.”

    Qi will have his first court appearance in Hillsborough at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, said prosecutor Jeff Nieman, whose district covers Orange and Chatham counties.

    Detectives looking for motive and firearm

    Emergency responders gather on South Street near the Bell Tower on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill campus on Monday.

    Detectives won’t get clues into the motive until they speak with the suspect, James said. Investigators have not found the firearm that was used in the shooting and it’s not known whether it was legally obtained, James said.

    No one else was injured, officials said.

    “This loss is devastating and the shooting damages the trust and safety that we so often take for granted in our campus community. We will work to rebuild that sense of trust and safety within our community,” UNC Chapel Hill Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz said.

    James said it was unclear whether the victim and the assailant knew each other.

    “That will hopefully be uncovered through interviews of the suspect as well as any witnesses that may be available,” he said.

    Classes and campus activities were canceled Monday and Tuesday, officials said. This is the second week of fall semester classes at the flagship university of the 17-member UNC system.

    After 911 calls about the shooting came in shortly after 1 p.m., university police issued an alert advising students to go inside immediately, close windows and doors and to wait until further notice, according to an email. A witness on campus told CNN they were locked down in their building and saw armed officers searching campus.

    Video from CNN affiliate WRAL showed a large number of police vehicles at the campus with their emergency lights flashing. At times, people walked out of nearby buildings in a single-file line with their arms in the air.

    Police detained one person before the suspect’s arrest but they determined “very quickly” it was not the gunman, James said.

    The suspect was taken into custody shortly after 2:30 p.m., Guskiewicz said. The university continued in lockdown for a couple hours after the suspect was detained because authorities were working to confirm they had the right person and trying to find the firearm that was used, James told reporters.

    The university has a student body of about 32,000, along with more than 4,000 faculty and 9,000 staff members.

    The FBI is assisting in evidence gathering, officials said.

    Forty-nine school shootings have happened in the US this year, including the UNC shooting – 34 have been reported on K-12 campuses and 15 on university and college campuses – according to a CNN tally.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Professor killed in shooting at UNC

    Professor killed in shooting at UNC

    [ad_1]

    Professor killed in shooting at UNC – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    A University of North Carolina professor was shot and killed Monday and a suspect is in custody. The shooting prompted an hourslong lockdown of the campus. Jeff Pegues reports.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Manhunt Underway For ‘Armed And Dangerous Person’ Near University Of North Carolina

    Manhunt Underway For ‘Armed And Dangerous Person’ Near University Of North Carolina

    [ad_1]

    The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill warned the local community Monday afternoon of an “armed and dangerous person on or near campus.”

    “Remain sheltered in place. This is an ongoing situation. Suspect at large,” the university said in an alert at 2:24 p.m. That notice came about an hour an a half after the school’s first warning of an armed and dangerous person.

    Police for the school, which has about 32,000 students, released an image of an unnamed person of interest in the situation.

    “If you see this person, keep your distance, put your safety first and call 911,” UNC Police said in a tweet.

    The incident occurred just a week after the start of classes following the summer break.

    “This is a tragic way to start a new semester and the state will provide any assistance necessary to support the UNC community,” North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) said.

    This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Unpacking the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision

    Unpacking the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision

    [ad_1]

    Unpacking the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The Supreme Court ended the systemic use of race as a factor in college admissions on Thursday. Jess Bravin, Supreme Court correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, joins CBS News to break down the decision. Plus, Andrew Brennen, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill graduate who testified in the case, shares his thoughts on the outcome.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Harvard’s admission process is notoriously tough. Here’s how the affirmative action ruling may affect that.

    Harvard’s admission process is notoriously tough. Here’s how the affirmative action ruling may affect that.

    [ad_1]

    Receiving an acceptance letter from Harvard University is seen as the American golden ticket — official entry into a college that has produced eight U.S. presidents, more billionaires and millionaires than most any other schools, and some of the world’s most lauded thinkers.

    Harvard is also notoriously hard to get into, with only 3.2% of last year’s applicants gaining admission

    That combination of privilege and exclusivity helps explain why Harvard was at the center of the Supreme Court case that on Thursday ended affirmative action in college admissions, effectively bringing an end to the use of race-conscious policies across the nation’s campuses. In writing the majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that college admissions are “zero-sum,” and that by opening doors for some applicants, others are shut out. 

    In a statement, Harvard said it will “certainly comply” with the Supreme Court’s decision, but added that “diversity and difference are essential to academic excellence.” In a video statement, Harvard president-elect Claudine Gay said the decision will “change” the way it pursues diversity, but didn’t disclose specifics.

    The future for Harvard’s admissions process may be surmised by looking at several states that have already banned the use of race in college admissions. They include some of the most populous U.S. states, including Arizona, California and Florida.

    “If you consider schools like [University of California] Berkeley and UCLA, the most selective public universities in the state, they saw declines in enrollment of Black and Hispanic students almost immediately,” said Nolvia Delgado, the executive director of the Kaplan Educational Foundation, which seeks to help underserved students attend college. 

    The Supreme Court decision “will definitely impact those numbers” at Harvard and other colleges, she added.

    Aside from Harvard, the Supreme Court also ruled that the University of North Carolina, the oldest public university in the nation, also violated the constitution by using race-conscious admissions policies. UNC said that it will “fully” comply with the decision, according to a statement from its board.

    The eight states that currently ban race-conscious strategies for college admissions tend to have an overrepresentation of White and Asian students in their undergraduate population, while minority students are underrepresented, according to an analysis by the Washington Post. The analysis found that Black and Hispanic students appeared more likely to enroll at less-selective colleges after states banned affirmative action.

    The ruling could impact far more than undergraduate admissions, education expert Maria Ledesma of San Jose State University told CBS San Francisco.

    “Undergraduate admissions is the entry point for training future leaders,” she said. “This is where we begin to train our future teachers, lawyers, doctors, etcetera. The ripple effect will go much beyond college admissions.”

    Harvard’s “lop list”

    Harvard and other elite institutions don’t only look at race, of course. The first step in the admissions process is to examine an applicant’s academic, athletic and extracurricular strengths, as well as letters of recommendations and a category that Roberts in his decision called “overall,” which includes an applicant’s race.

    By the end of Harvard’s decision process, its admissions staff must winnow down its list of strong applicants — a process called the “lop list.” Staffers only see four bits of information about students on the lop list: Legacy status, recruited athlete status, financial aid eligibility and race, the decision noted. 

    Race was a strong reason that a “significant percentage” of Black and Hispanic students on the lop list received acceptances, the decision noted.

    With the ruling, Harvard and other colleges may no longer be able to use race as a determinant for processes such as the “lop list,” but the Supreme Court’s decision also kept the door open to using race as a factor, albeit to a lesser extent, in admissions. 

    “[N]othing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university,” Roberts wrote. 

    New strategies 

    Some colleges had been anticipating the Supreme Court’s decision and were working on strategies in case affirmative action would be struck down, Delgado of the Kaplan Foundation said.

    “I know firsthand, some of our partner institutions, like Smith and Brown and Yale, are working to engage students from other sources, not just students that are coming from high school,” Delgado said. “[They are] partnering with community based organizations, and have done a phenomenal job at considering the student holistically.”

    Those colleges have also been working on their transfer process, which could help them draw more diverse students who switch schools after their freshman year, she noted.

    Similar approaches were used by Berkeley in recent years, after its Black enrollment dropped following California’s ban on affirmative action. The university’s Office of Undergraduate Admissions changed its outreach to recruit more underrepresented applicants, such as Black and Hispanic students, as well as first-generation and lower-income applicants. Berkeley officials also talk with counselors at high schools, community colleges and other institutions to help them understand the admissions process, according to the school.

    Even so, Berkeley’s freshman class in 2020 was about 4% Black, compared with 53% Asian and 30% White. In Harvard’s most recent round of admissions, about 15% of students were Black. 

    Some critics point to other preferences in admissions that give a leg up to other types of candidates: Children of graduates, also called “legacies,” as well as those from wealthy families. In essence, they argue, such policies are affirmative action for the rich and well-connected — topics that weren’t part of today’s Supreme Court case. 

    And these strategies, which are legal, certainly help some types of applicants: A 2019 economic study found that recruited athletes, legacies, children of faculty and staff and kids of wealthy donors represented 43% of White admitted students at Harvard.

    —With reporting by Sanvi Bangalore.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Video: Has Elon Musk ruined Twitter and why EV trucks are getting bigger on CNN Nightcap | CNN Business

    Video: Has Elon Musk ruined Twitter and why EV trucks are getting bigger on CNN Nightcap | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    How is Musk doing at Twitter? Why are EVs getting bigger? And why so many meetings?!

    In this week’s “Nightcap,” The New York Times reporter Mike Isaac evaluates Elon Musk’s first 100 days at Twitter. Curbed writer Alissa Walker explains the issue with EVs getting bigger. And UNC Charlotte professor Steven Rogelberg explains to CNN’s Jon Sarlin how to combat the trend of too many meetings. To get the day’s business headlines sent directly to your inbox, sign up for the Nightcap newsletter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justice Jackson’s Crucial Argument About Affirmative Action

    Justice Jackson’s Crucial Argument About Affirmative Action

    [ad_1]

    Yesterday, an hour and a half into the marathon hearings about whether colleges can use race as a factor in admissions decisions, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson began to rub her temples as she looked down at her notes.

    “We’re entertaining a rule where some people can say what they want about who they are and have that valued in a system,” she said. “And I’m worried that that creates an inequity in the system with respect to being able to express our identity.” Black and Latino applicants would be limited if they can’t express their race in the selection process, she said. She almost laughed with exasperation. “Is that a crazy worry or is that something I should be thinking about and concerned about?”

    In previous arguments this term, Jackson was a forceful voice on issues of racial discrimination and the intent of the constitutional amendments designed to protect against it. For many in favor of race-conscious admissions, she has been a welcome presence on the Court, asking, in a way, the question at the center of the cases: Have less than 50 years of affirmative action put enough of a dent in the inequality fostered over more than two centuries of racial discrimination in higher education to merit eliminating the practice?

    For roughly five hours, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in cases of Students for Fair Admissions, a coalition of unnamed Asian American students brought together by the conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, against the University of North Carolina and Harvard. If the cases are successful and the justices side with SFFA—which a majority of the justices seemed quite open to in their questioning yesterday—the decision would overturn the precedent established in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978, which has been upheld for more than 40 years. Because of her previous tenure on Harvard’s Board of Overseers, Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case and sat for only the UNC case. But she did not waste the time she had.

    Although relatively few colleges are selective enough to have reason to consider race in admitting students, there is significant evidence about what happens at those schools when such programs go away. Michigan and California, for example, saw precipitous declines in Black enrollment at their flagship campuses after those states banned the practice. (By SFFA’s own estimates, described during oral argument, Black enrollment at Harvard would fall from 14 to 10 percent without affirmative action.) In some ways, that’s the backdrop to Jackson’s questions. She was driving toward a fundamental statement about what the programs are for: Race-conscious admissions are designed to help students get into college, not to exclude students as a result of their existence.

    Jackson’s point is well worn. In 1978, during the oral arguments in the Bakke case, Justice Thurgood Marshall identified it. In an exchange where he prodded Reynold Colvin, who argued for the plaintiff, Allan Bakke, Marshall pointed out, “You’re arguing about keeping somebody out and the other side is arguing about getting somebody in.” Colvin agreed. “So, it depends on which way you look at it, doesn’t it?”

    Once again, Colvin agreed. “It depends on which way you look at the problem,” Colvin said.

    Marshall’s voice changed. “It does?” he said, with a rise in inflection.

    “The problem—” Colvin began to say before Marshall cut him off.

    “It does?” Marshall said, frustrating Colvin. “You’re talking about your client’s rights; don’t these underprivileged people have rights too?”

    Yesterday, Jackson was less direct, but no less potent, in an exchange with Patrick Strawbridge, the lawyer for SFFA. She offered a hypothetical to emphasize her point. There are two applicants who would like their family backgrounds recognized. One writes that their family has been in North Carolina since before the Civil War, and that if they were admitted to the university, they would be a fifth-generation student there. The other student is also a North Carolinian whose family has been in the state since before the Civil War—but their ancestors were enslaved and, because of years of systemic discrimination, were not allowed to attend the university. But now that they have the opportunity, they would like to attend. “As I understand your no-race-conscious-admissions rule, these two applicants would have a dramatically different opportunity to tell their family stories and to have them count.” Both applicants were qualified, Jackson offered, but the first applicant’s qualifications could be recognized in the process, whereas “the second one wouldn’t be able to [get credit for those qualifications] because his story is in many ways bound up with his race and the race of his ancestors.”

    Strawbridge thought for a moment, then offered that UNC does not have to give a legacy benefit to the first applicant if it doesn’t want to. This is true, but it was not Jackson’s point: “No, but you said it was okay if they gave a legacy benefit.” Race, she said, would be the only thing that couldn’t be considered under that program. And that would disadvantage the Black student who, in a similar set of circumstances, wants “the fact that he has been in North Carolina for generations through his family” considered.

    In a day filled with questions about the meaning of “true diversity” or the educational benefits of diversity, Jackson’s questions cut through the muck. Some students had historically been denied access to some of the nation’s most well-resourced institutions of higher education—feeder campuses for prominent roles throughout society–because of their race. If SFFA wins, that fact will be one of the only things a university cannot consider in its admissions process, as though that history never happened—as though the system is fair enough already.

    [ad_2]

    Adam Harris

    Source link

  • Supreme Court Justices Signal Willingness To End Affirmative Action

    Supreme Court Justices Signal Willingness To End Affirmative Action

    [ad_1]

    Topline

    The Supreme Court appears poised to outlaw affirmative action policies that take race into account in university admissions, as the court’s conservative justices signaled during oral arguments Monday that they’re open to ending the practice in favor of “race-neutral” admissions—even as the court’s liberal justices asserted its importance.

    Key Facts

    Justices heard arguments Monday from activist group Students for Fair Admissions arguing that affirmative action policies violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, with the first case centered on the policy at the University of North Carolina.

    Conservative justices including Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that applicants could make up for not having their race directly taken into account by writing essays showing how they’ve overcome racial discrimination, or similar steps showing how their racial background helps their application versus just “ticking a box.”

    Roberts suggested forcing schools to get rid of their affirmative action policies could be “an incentive for the university to truly pursue race neutral alternatives” that could still be effective in promoting diversity, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to the fact that some states have already gotten rid of affirmative action and can still “produce significant numbers of minority students on campuses.”

    Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned what the difference is between encouraging diversity and racial quotas in admissions, which the Supreme Court previously ruled in 1978 are not permissible.

    Justice Clarence Thomas pushed back when North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park argued diverse groups “perform at a higher level”—saying he “[doesn’t] put much stock in that” because he’s heard similar arguments about segregation—and Justice Samuel Alito questioned the value of checking a box on race in the first place.

    The court will also hear a second case Monday concerning the affirmative action policy at Harvard University.

    Chief Critic

    The court’s liberal justices pushed back heavily Monday against attorney Patrick Strawbridge, who argued on behalf of the challengers. “I thought part of what it means to be American … is that our institutions are representative of who we actually are, in all of our variety,” Justice Elena Kagan argued in favor of policies that would encourage diversity, acknowledging that top universities “are the pipelines to leadership in our society.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is recusing from the Harvard case but participated in the UNC case, argued there isn’t sufficient evidence to show that students were admitted solely based on their race, or that the students represented by Students for Fair Admissions weren’t admitted solely because they were from more overrepresented racial groups. Not allowing minority applicants to express their race, while still having other factors taken into account, “seems to have the potential of causing more of an equal protection problem than it’s actually solving,” Jackson also argued.

    Big Number

    41.5%. That’s the approximate percentage of U.S. universities that take race into account when determining admissions, according to a study by the National Association for College Admissions Counseling that Harvard cited in a court brief, as well as 60% of more selective universities that accept 40% or fewer of their applicants. At least nine states—Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Washington—already have policies that don’t allow affirmative action in university admissions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

    What To Watch For

    The Supreme Court likely won’t rule for a few months on the two affirmative action cases. If the justices do side with the challengers, it could have wide-reaching implications for schools across the country. Harvard has argued in court briefs that taking race out of its admissions process would reduce enrollment of Black students at the school from 14% to 6% of its student body, and Hispanic enrollment from 14% to 9%. The University of Michigan, which had to adopt race-neutral policies after a state ballot measure abolished affirmative action, said in a court brief that as a result, its Black population decreased by 44% between 2006 and 2021, even as Michigan’s population of college-aged African Americans increased, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology argued getting rid of race in its admissions would result in the “denial of talented prospective scientists and engineers with exceptional promise.” That lack of diversity could have broader-reaching implications: MIT noted it would result in marginalized groups becoming further unrepresented in science and engineering fields, while Harvard noted it would also lead to a 14% drop in the number of students at the university studying humanities subjects. A coalition of smaller liberal arts colleges pointed to research arguing that exposure to diversity “improves learning experiences, problem-solving and critical-thinking skills, and interpersonal and leadership skills,” among other benefits.

    Key Background

    The Supreme Court agreed to take up the affirmative action cases in January after lower courts sided in both cases with the universities and found their admission policies do not violate federal equal rights protections. Affirmative action was first established through an executive order in 1965 that told employers to “take affirmative action to ensure that equal opportunity is provided in all aspects of their employment,” and the Supreme Court then upheld the policy in a 1978 ruling finding universities could consider race as part of its admission process. It then further affirmed the practice in rulings in 2003 and 2016, though the latter ruling was narrowly tailored to the specific policy at the University of Texas that was at issue. Critics of the policy argue affirmative action is unfairly discriminatory against white and Asian American applicants, who are more overrepresented in applicant pools as compared with Black and Hispanic students.

    Tangent

    Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar also argued on behalf of the Biden Administration that affirmative action should be upheld Monday. Prelogar argued that cutting off race-based admissions would negatively impact the federal government and the U.S. military by impacting the diversity of people who get admitted to service academies or to the military through ROTC programs at universities. The pipeline from ROTC programs and service academies is “critically important,” Prelogar argued, noting that the military promotes from within and people who get admitted through university programs now will affect “the closed universe of people who will be eligible for leadership in the military in 20, 30 years time.”

    Further Reading

    Affirmative Action Could Soon Be Overturned As Supreme Court Takes Up Harvard And UNC Cases (Forbes)

    In cases challenging affirmative action, court will confront wide-ranging arguments on history, diversity, and the role of race in America (SCOTUSblog)

    A Timeline of Key Supreme Court Cases on Affirmative Action (New York Times)

    In Clash Over Affirmative Action, Both Sides Invoke Brown v. Board of Education (New York Times)

    [ad_2]

    Alison Durkee, Forbes Staff

    Source link

  • The College-Admissions Merit Myth

    The College-Admissions Merit Myth

    [ad_1]

    Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases that could end America’s experiment with affirmative action in higher education. The challenges to the admissions programs at Harvard and at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill—both brought by Students for Fair Admissions, a coalition of unnamed students assembled by the conservative legal strategist Edward Blum—argue that the institutions discriminate against Asian American students, and that eliminating the use of race in admissions would fix the problem.

    Lower courts have rejected SFFA’s arguments, leaning on more than 40 years of precedent that says the use of race in admissions is permissible in narrow circumstances. “Harvard has demonstrated that no workable and available race-neutral alternatives would allow it to achieve a diverse student body while still maintaining its standards for academic excellence,” Judge Allison Burroughs wrote in her 2019 opinion. But SFFA pressed on, and now the case sits before a conservative Supreme Court that has shown a willingness to overturn well-established precedents.

    In her new book, Is Affirmative Action Fair? The Myth of Equity in College Admissions, Natasha Warikoo, a sociologist at Tufts University who has spent years examining race-conscious admissions, assesses the positions of those for and against affirmative action, and argues that we’re asking the wrong questions about how students get into college. By exalting merit, Warikoo warns, Americans have developed a skewed perception of the process—a perception that leads to challenges such as the one before the Court.

    I spoke with Warikoo about her book, the Supreme Court hearing, and how we can better understand admissions.

    This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.


    Adam Harris: You write, “When we recognize the diverse goals that universities attempt to address through college admissions, it becomes clear that admission is not a certification of individual merit, or deservingness, nor was it ever meant to be.” Can you expand on that idea? Where do we have flaws in our understanding of college admissions?

    Natasha Warikoo: In the past, it was like “We want to have a bar.” You had to have some demonstration that you could handle the work that we’re going to give you. And some of that was exclusionary. It was like “Can you pass the Latin test?” Well, most schools didn’t teach kids Latin, so it’s not that that was fair—it was “You’re going to be doing Latin; do you know Latin?”

    But now, when we’re talking about super-selective places—there are more than 200 of them, so not just the Ivies, but also not most colleges—they have so many different interests that are playing into who they’re admitting. You’ve got the sports coaches who are trying to get their recruits; you’ve got the development office that gives a list and says, “These people have done a lot for this university—make sure you take a close look at that”; there’s the humanities departments who want to make sure there are people interested in the humanities, not just in STEM; the orchestra’s bassoon player may have graduated, and now the orchestra needs a bassoon player. So, there are all these different things that are going on, and the admissions office is trying to fulfill all these different interests and needs.

    But ordinary people treat admissions as, you know, they’re lining people up from best to worst and taking the top ones, and if one of these says they’re not coming, then they take the next person. Well, that’s not how it works. They’re fulfilling organizational needs and desires. But somehow, we treat it as a prize—and whoever is most deserving gets in.

    Harris: That plays into the broader idea in America around merit, and the way that we’ve oriented our society around merit. How do merit and the idea of fairness work together to give us the wrong idea about admission systems?

    Warikoo: In all of these international surveys, when you look at respondents’ belief about whether people should be rewarded for merit over other things, Americans are much more likely to say yes than people in most other countries. A lot of modern societies believe in these ideas of meritocracy, but the United States is especially attached to the idea. We have this belief that some people are deserving—and the unspoken idea that some are undeserving. And there’s a sense of entitlement, like I did all of these things; I deserve a spot at these places.

    But we should stop treating college admissions as if everybody is on an equal playing field and that the person who is the smartest, the most hardworking, the one with the most grit, is the one getting in. Instead of arguing about how affirmative action goes against our ideas of meritocracy, we should look at what colleges are actually trying to do.

    Harris: Well, let’s talk about affirmative action. How has it been viewed since Justice Lewis Powell accepted the diversity rationale in the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case in 1978?

    Warikoo: There’s a whole industry of research that develops after that decision to really try to dig into the impact of a diverse learning environment: What is the impact of having a roommate of a different race, going to a college that is diverse, being in a class with students who are a different race? And this research shows all these benefits: Groups make better decisions; students have more intellectual engagement; they improve their racial attitudes. There are even some findings that show a positive impact on civic engagement down the line. A student may not even have a diverse set of friends, but if they’re on a diverse campus, there seems to be some kind of impact.

    So, all of this research shows these positive effects, and those data have been used in subsequent court cases defending affirmative action. But in the public conversation, many people recognize that it’s also an equity issue.

    Harris: In 2003, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said the Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary. And that’s what a lot of opponents of affirmative action say now: It may have been justified in the past, but it’s no longer necessary—and if we need something, we might be able to find a proxy. Are there proxies for race in admissions?

    Warikoo: The legal requirement is that when you’re using these suspect categories such as race in a policy, you have to show that there’s no other way that you could do things instead. And it’s pretty clear that there’s no good stand-in for race. We can use class, and class is important. But I don’t see these as either-or. The Georgetown law professor Sheryll Cashin has looked at zip code as a stand-in, and it’s pretty clear that such an approach is not going to have an impact on the numbers of underrepresented minority students on campus. Because, you know, the overwhelming majority of people in the United States today are white. The majority of people who are poor in this country are white. So you’re not really going to racially diversify by looking at class.

    Colleges have tried different things, such as the Texas “10 percent plan.” The research suggests that these other ideas are somewhat helpful, but the problem has been that graduation rates can go down when you’re just using a percent plan. And it’s not a stand-in for race-based affirmative action.

    We can look at the data from the states that have banned affirmative action to understand that they have not figured out a stand-in. We see declines in every state, year on year, of the number of underrepresented minorities when affirmative action gets banned.

    Harris: One of the through lines in the book is the purpose of higher education. What can colleges do better to be more honest about their goals?

    Warikoo: One is being careful about how they talk about admissions. And when you dig into their language, many schools say that they’re looking to build a class, and that everyone makes a unique contribution. But they’re still publishing acceptance rates. There are so many ways in which the language they use buys into this idea that they are a place of excellence. This is the best class ever, you’re told when you’re a freshman.

    When you have these elite colleges in which the student body comes from more resourced families than the average across 18 year-olds, it’s not just the best of the best. Your family’s resources play a role—whether you have parents who went to college, whether you grew up in certain neighborhoods or went to certain schools. Two-thirds of American adults don’t have a bachelor’s degree.

    But I keep coming back to the question of What are we trying to do here? Our spending in the U.S. on higher education is regressive. The most elite colleges accept students who are the highest achieving and most resourced. But who needs the most support? When you look at what community colleges are doing in terms of social mobility, they blow places like Harvard and Tufts out of the water. Colleges should think much more about the role they want to play in our society, and how they should align admissions to those goals.

    Harris: As I got toward the end of the book, where you talk about solutions, a couple of things really stuck out: the sort of anti-inclusive instinct that a lot of institutions have in terms of increasing their enrollment, where they don’t want to increase enrollment because that may upset alumni who attach value to the selectiveness of their institution. Or, if there were an admission lottery, families of high achievers may be frustrated. And my takeaway was: There’s really nothing the institutions may be able to do that is going to make everyone happy, so maybe they should just do what’s just.

    Warikoo: Yes. There are so many more amazing 18-year-olds in our country—deserving, hardworking, ambitious, smart, whatever superlative you want to use—than there is space for them at Harvard, at UNC, at any given school.

    But we have to stop acting like you deserve it and you don’t deserve it. It’s not about who deserves it. And that’s why I talk about a lottery system, because it implies you don’t deserve this more than anyone else—you got lucky. It already is luck: that your parents could afford to buy a house near a school that had a college counselor, or you had a tutor who could help you with your essay, or you went to a school with a crew team and you got recruited for crew—all kinds of things. It is luck. Why not call it what it is?

    [ad_2]

    Adam Harris

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]



    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.

    Andrew Brennen

    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.

    Thang Diep

    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.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link