困难对话

Richard Guarasci
{"title":"困难对话","authors":"Richard Guarasci","doi":"10.18060/27992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nApart from all the legal semantics, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action and student debt, when considered together, are, in effect, an attack on economic justice. The social brunt of both decisions likely will impact student access, affordability and educational attainment significantly, particularly for those at the perimeters of the American economy. In the name of increasing opportunity, the Supreme Court’s “originalist” majority opinion claims that a “race-free” approach eliminates discrimination in college admissions. The minority opinion of Judge Jackson refuted this ahistorical claim by restating that the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, most definitely a race-specific one, addressed the racial foundations of a formal bondage system of legalized slavery in the United States. The Fourteenth clearly acknowledges the need to rebalance the legal playing field to establish a realistic “equality of opportunity.” A century later, the policy of affirmative action aimed at continuing that process after years of the Jim Crow practice of “separate but equal” that was established in the Court’s 1896 decision in Plessy v Ferguson. By 2023, it is clear that racial inequality remains embedded in the American educational system and throughout its economy and society. \n","PeriodicalId":34289,"journal":{"name":"Metropolitan Universities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Difficult Conversation\",\"authors\":\"Richard Guarasci\",\"doi\":\"10.18060/27992\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nApart from all the legal semantics, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action and student debt, when considered together, are, in effect, an attack on economic justice. The social brunt of both decisions likely will impact student access, affordability and educational attainment significantly, particularly for those at the perimeters of the American economy. In the name of increasing opportunity, the Supreme Court’s “originalist” majority opinion claims that a “race-free” approach eliminates discrimination in college admissions. The minority opinion of Judge Jackson refuted this ahistorical claim by restating that the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, most definitely a race-specific one, addressed the racial foundations of a formal bondage system of legalized slavery in the United States. The Fourteenth clearly acknowledges the need to rebalance the legal playing field to establish a realistic “equality of opportunity.” A century later, the policy of affirmative action aimed at continuing that process after years of the Jim Crow practice of “separate but equal” that was established in the Court’s 1896 decision in Plessy v Ferguson. By 2023, it is clear that racial inequality remains embedded in the American educational system and throughout its economy and society. \\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":34289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Metropolitan Universities\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Metropolitan Universities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18060/27992\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metropolitan Universities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18060/27992","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

除了所有法律语义之外,美国最高法院最近关于平权法案和学生债务的裁决,如果放在一起考虑,实际上是对经济正义的攻击。这两项裁决所带来的社会冲击可能会对学生的入学机会、经济承受能力和受教育程度产生重大影响,尤其是对那些处于美国经济边缘的学生而言。最高法院的 "原创主义 "多数意见以增加机会为名,声称 "无种族 "的方法消除了大学录取中的歧视。杰克逊法官的少数意见反驳了这一不符合历史的主张,重申美国宪法第十四修正案无疑是针对特定种族的修正案,它解决了美国合法化奴隶制的正式奴役制度的种族基础问题。第十四修正案明确承认有必要重新平衡法律竞争环境,以建立现实的 "机会平等"。一个世纪后,平权行动政策旨在继续这一进程,而多年来吉姆-克劳人的 "隔离但平等 "做法是由法院在 1896 年的 "普莱西诉弗格森案 "判决中确立的。到 2023 年,种族不平等显然仍然根植于美国的教育体系以及整个经济和社会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Difficult Conversation
Apart from all the legal semantics, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action and student debt, when considered together, are, in effect, an attack on economic justice. The social brunt of both decisions likely will impact student access, affordability and educational attainment significantly, particularly for those at the perimeters of the American economy. In the name of increasing opportunity, the Supreme Court’s “originalist” majority opinion claims that a “race-free” approach eliminates discrimination in college admissions. The minority opinion of Judge Jackson refuted this ahistorical claim by restating that the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, most definitely a race-specific one, addressed the racial foundations of a formal bondage system of legalized slavery in the United States. The Fourteenth clearly acknowledges the need to rebalance the legal playing field to establish a realistic “equality of opportunity.” A century later, the policy of affirmative action aimed at continuing that process after years of the Jim Crow practice of “separate but equal” that was established in the Court’s 1896 decision in Plessy v Ferguson. By 2023, it is clear that racial inequality remains embedded in the American educational system and throughout its economy and society.
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
20
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
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