掏心掏肺:平权法案缺失对医生多样性的影响

Asees Bhasin, Gregory Curfman
{"title":"掏心掏肺:平权法案缺失对医生多样性的影响","authors":"Asees Bhasin, Gregory Curfman","doi":"10.18060/27167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last four decades, race-conscious admission policies have been the subject of heated judicial and social controversy. In 1978, in the case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the consideration of race was held to be permissible to serve the compelling interest of promoting diversity in higher education. Since then, this issue has come up before the Supreme Court severaltimes. In October 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in two cases—Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. In the Harvard case, Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”), a conservative organization led by Edward Blum, argues that Harvard discriminates against Asian American applicants, thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In both the Harvard College and University of North Carolina cases, SFFA argues that the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, a case that cemented the proposition that narrowly tailored admission policies that consider race to achieve diversity are constitutional. On a second level, SFFA argues that both Harvard’s and UNC’s policies are not narrowly tailored due to their rejection of workable race-neutral alternatives.Part I of this Article provides an overview of past litigation concerning affirmative action policies. Part II discusses the two cases Students for FairAdmissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina that are up for consideration before the Supreme Court. Part III discusses the importance of diversity in the medical workforce, and the potential impact of the SFFA lawsuits on medical practice. Part IV discusses arguments that may become important in these cases, potentialoutcomes of this litigation, and what the future of higher education looks like ifrace is prohibited from being considered in university admissions.","PeriodicalId":87436,"journal":{"name":"Indiana health law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gutting Grutter: The Effect of the Loss of Affirmative Action on Diversity Among Physicians\",\"authors\":\"Asees Bhasin, Gregory Curfman\",\"doi\":\"10.18060/27167\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Over the last four decades, race-conscious admission policies have been the subject of heated judicial and social controversy. In 1978, in the case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the consideration of race was held to be permissible to serve the compelling interest of promoting diversity in higher education. Since then, this issue has come up before the Supreme Court severaltimes. In October 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in two cases—Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. In the Harvard case, Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”), a conservative organization led by Edward Blum, argues that Harvard discriminates against Asian American applicants, thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In both the Harvard College and University of North Carolina cases, SFFA argues that the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, a case that cemented the proposition that narrowly tailored admission policies that consider race to achieve diversity are constitutional. On a second level, SFFA argues that both Harvard’s and UNC’s policies are not narrowly tailored due to their rejection of workable race-neutral alternatives.Part I of this Article provides an overview of past litigation concerning affirmative action policies. Part II discusses the two cases Students for FairAdmissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina that are up for consideration before the Supreme Court. Part III discusses the importance of diversity in the medical workforce, and the potential impact of the SFFA lawsuits on medical practice. Part IV discusses arguments that may become important in these cases, potentialoutcomes of this litigation, and what the future of higher education looks like ifrace is prohibited from being considered in university admissions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indiana health law review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indiana health law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18060/27167\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana health law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18060/27167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的四十年里,有种族意识的录取政策一直是司法和社会激烈争议的主题。1978年,在加州大学校务委员会诉巴克案中,考虑种族是被允许的,以服务于促进高等教育多样性的迫切利益。从那以后,这个问题多次出现在最高法院面前。2022年10月,美国最高法院听取了两起案件的口头辩论——学生公平录取诉总统;哈佛学院研究员和公平录取学生组织诉北卡罗来纳大学案。在哈佛一案中,由爱德华·布鲁姆(Edward Blum)领导的保守派组织“学生公平录取”(Students for Fair Admissions,简称“SFFA”)认为,哈佛歧视亚裔美国申请者,因此违反了1964年《民权法案》第六章。在哈佛学院和北卡罗来纳大学的案件中,SFFA都认为最高法院应该驳回Grutter v. Bollinger一案,该案巩固了一个主张,即考虑种族以实现多样性的狭隘录取政策是符合宪法的。在第二个层面上,SFFA认为,哈佛大学和北卡罗来纳大学的政策都不是狭隘的,因为它们拒绝了可行的种族中立的替代方案。本文第一部分概述了过去有关平权行动政策的诉讼。第二部分讨论了公平录取学生组织诉总统案。哈佛学院的研究员和公平录取学生诉北卡罗来纳大学的案子正在最高法院审理中。第三部分讨论了医疗人员多样性的重要性,以及SFFA诉讼对医疗实践的潜在影响。第四部分讨论了在这些案件中可能变得重要的论点,这场诉讼的潜在结果,以及如果种族被禁止在大学录取中被考虑,高等教育的未来会是什么样子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gutting Grutter: The Effect of the Loss of Affirmative Action on Diversity Among Physicians
Over the last four decades, race-conscious admission policies have been the subject of heated judicial and social controversy. In 1978, in the case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the consideration of race was held to be permissible to serve the compelling interest of promoting diversity in higher education. Since then, this issue has come up before the Supreme Court severaltimes. In October 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in two cases—Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. In the Harvard case, Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”), a conservative organization led by Edward Blum, argues that Harvard discriminates against Asian American applicants, thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In both the Harvard College and University of North Carolina cases, SFFA argues that the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, a case that cemented the proposition that narrowly tailored admission policies that consider race to achieve diversity are constitutional. On a second level, SFFA argues that both Harvard’s and UNC’s policies are not narrowly tailored due to their rejection of workable race-neutral alternatives.Part I of this Article provides an overview of past litigation concerning affirmative action policies. Part II discusses the two cases Students for FairAdmissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina that are up for consideration before the Supreme Court. Part III discusses the importance of diversity in the medical workforce, and the potential impact of the SFFA lawsuits on medical practice. Part IV discusses arguments that may become important in these cases, potentialoutcomes of this litigation, and what the future of higher education looks like ifrace is prohibited from being considered in university admissions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信