-
Kenya's economy faces climate change risks: World Bank
-
US Fed expected to hold rates steady as Iran war roils outlook
-
It's 'Sinners' v 'One Battle' as Oscars day arrives
-
US mayors push back against data center boom as AI backlash grows
-
Who covers AI business blunders? Some insurers cautiously step up
-
Election campaign deepens Congo's generational divide
-
Courchevel super-G cancelled due to snow and fog
-
Middle East turmoil revives Norway push for Arctic drilling
-
Iran, US threaten attacks on oil facilities
-
Oscars: the 10 nominees for best picture
-
Spielberg defends ballet, opera after Chalamet snub
-
Kharg Island bombed, Trump says US to escort ships through Hormuz soon
-
Jurors mull evidence in social media addiction trial
-
UK govt warns petrol retailers against 'unfair practices' during Iran war
-
Mideast war cuts Hormuz strait transit to 77 ships: maritime data firm
-
How will US oil sanctions waiver help Russia?
-
Oil stays above $100, stocks slide tracking Mideast war
-
How Iranians are communicating through internet blackout
-
Global shipping industry caught in storm of war
-
Why is the dollar profiting from Middle East war?
-
Oil dips under $100, stocks back in green tracking Mideast war
-
US Fed's preferred inflation gauge edges down
-
Deadly blast rocks Iran as leaders attend rally in show of defiance
-
Moscow pushes US to ease more oil sanctions
-
AI agent 'lobster fever' grips China despite risks
-
Thousands of Chinese boats mass at sea, raising questions
-
Casting directors finally get their due at Oscars
-
Fantastic Mr Stowaway: fox sails from Britain to New York port
-
US jury to begin deliberations in social media addiction trial
-
NASA says 'on track' for Artemis 2 launch as soon as April 1
-
Valentino mixes 80s and Baroque splendour on Rome return
-
Dating app Tinder dabbles with AI matchmaking
-
Scavenging ravens memorize vast tracts of wolf hunting grounds: study
-
Top US, China economy officials to meet for talks in Paris
-
Chile's Smiljan Radic Clarke wins Pritzker architecture prize
-
Lufthansa flights axed as pilots walk out
-
Oil tops $100 as fresh Iran attacks offset stockpiles release
-
US military 'not ready' to escort tankers through Hormuz Strait: energy secretary
-
WWII leader Churchill to be removed from UK banknotes
-
EU vows to 'respond firmly' to any trade pact breach by US
-
'Punished' for university: debt-laden UK graduates urge reform
-
Mideast war to brake German recovery: institute
-
China-North Korea train arrives in Pyongyang after 6-year halt
-
Businessman or politician? Billionaire Czech PM under fire again
-
Lost page of legendary Archimedes palimpsest found in France
-
Cathay Pacific roughly doubles fuel surcharge on most routes
-
BMW profit holds up despite Trump tariffs, China woes
-
Electric vehicle rethink to cost Honda almost $16 billion
-
From Kyiv to UK, Ukrainian drone production spans Europe
-
Australia to change fuel quality standards to boost supply
US Supreme Court's right-wing skeptical of using race in college admissions
The conservative-majority US Supreme Court appeared poised on Monday to ban the use of race as a factor in deciding who gets into America's elite universities.
The top US court heard nearly five hours of arguments on the use of race in admissions to Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC) -- respectively the oldest private and public institutions of higher education in the country.
Harvard and UNC, like a number of other top US schools, consider an applicant's race as a factor in trying to ensure a diverse student body and representation of minorities, a policy known as "affirmative action."
It emerged from the Civil Rights Movement in the late 1960s to help address the legacy of discrimination in higher education against African Americans.
The suits against Harvard and UNC were brought by a group known as Students for Fair Admissions, which claims that race-conscious admissions policies discriminate against equally qualified applicants of Asian American origin.
"The racial preference is operating to the disadvantage of Asian American applicants," Patrick Strawbridge, attorney for Students for Fair Admissions, told the court.
"When you use race, you're telling applicants that their race matters," Strawbridge said, calling it "inherently divisive."
"It gets us further away from a world where the government treats race as irrelevant," he said.
Strawbridge's arguments appeared to get a sympathetic hearing from the conservative justices on the court, setting the stage for another potential historic reversal like in June, when the high court overturned its landmark 1973 "Roe v. Wade" decision guaranteeing a woman's right to abortion.
Conservatives currently enjoy a solid 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, including three justices nominated by former president Donald Trump, a Republican.
- 'Don't have a clue what it means' -
Justice Clarence Thomas, a longtime opponent of affirmative action, said he could not think of another case "where the court deferred to the alleged discriminator."
"I've heard the word diversity quite a few times and I don't have a clue what it means," he added. "It seems to mean everything for everyone."
Conservative justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett repeatedly pressed the attorneys for Harvard and UNC about when there would be an "end point" to affirmative action.
"Your position is that race matters because it's necessary for diversity," Roberts said. "It's not going to stop mattering at some particular point.
"You're always going to have to look at race because you say race matters to give us the necessary diversity."
Justice Elena Kagan and the other two liberal justices on the court pushed back against the arguments put forward by Students for Fair Admissions.
"For decades, this court has rightly recognized that student body diversity is a compelling interest that can justify limited consideration of race in university admissions," Kagan said.
"That holding recognizes a simple but profound truth -- when students of all races and backgrounds come to college and live together and learn together they become better colleagues, better citizens and better leaders," she said.
"In your view, it really wouldn't matter if there was a precipitous decline in minority admissions," Kagan said to Strawbridge. "Your brief says it just doesn't matter if our institutions look like America.
"Doesn't it?" she asked.
- 'Cause racial diversity to plummet' -
The administration of Democratic President Joe Biden and dozens of major American companies have weighed in on the side of the universities.
"A blanket ban on race-conscious admissions would cause racial diversity to plummet at many of our nation's leading educational institutions," US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court.
Previous courts have upheld affirmative action -- in 2016 by a single vote -- but the policy has been controversial from the start, and a number of white students have mounted legal challenges over the years, claiming "reverse discrimination."
Nine states have banned affirmative action at public universities including California, where voters did so in a ballot proposition in 1996 and rebuffed an attempt to revive the policy in 2020.
In a 1978 decision -- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke -- the Supreme Court banned the use of quotas in university admissions as unconstitutional.
But the court said race or ethnic origin can be considered as one factor among others in admitting students to ensure a diverse student body and to combat previous discrimination that could have prevented marginalized students from being accepted to those schools.
Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman on the Supreme Court, sat out the Harvard case because she has served previously on the Board of Overseers at the school.
Y.Uduike--CPN