-
Arnaldi into French Open semis as Berrettini retires injured
-
Cuba has 'technocrats' willing to negotiate, Rubio says
-
Authorities warn of World Cup ticket, merchandise scams
-
US sanctions interrupt Visa, Mastercard payments in Cuba
-
Cobolli sinks Auger-Aliassime to book French Open semi spot
-
Police probe alleged assault on coach of Australian tennis player in Birmingham
-
France's Saliba 'fine' after injury scare, says Deschamps
-
Somalia ex-PM says attacked by govt forces in Mogadishu
-
Ukraine drone strikes causing 'panic' for Kremlin: EU's Kallas to AFP
-
Rubio brushes off Trump mental acuity concerns as 'absurd'
-
Ukraine's Kostyuk takes on Russian Andreeva in French Open semis
-
German director Wenders pulls 1975 film over child nude scene
-
McIlroy chasing elusive Memorial, Scheffler eyes three-peat
-
Sabalenka implodes as Shnaider books French Open semi with Chwalinska
-
Sabalenka fell into 'dark hole' during French Open loss
-
Ukrainian drones hit Saint Petersburg as 'Russian Davos' opens
-
Stokes defends Archer's England absence due to IPL duties
-
UN urges AI firms to reveal environmental footprint
-
Sabalenka crumbles to French Open quarter-final defeat by Shnaider
-
Henry fit to lead New Zealand's attack at Lord's
-
Yamal, Williams should be fit for World Cup opener: De la Fuente
-
UK PM slams violence over police handcuffing of dying student
-
EU wants to favour European firms for AI, cloud in sovereignty push
-
England captain Stokes defends Archer's IPL-enforced absence from Test side
-
Deadly drone strike on Kuwait airport as Iran, US trade fire
-
EU eases spending rules to tackle energy shock
-
Polish qualifier Chwalinska reaches French Open semi-finals
-
Romania wants to boost air defence after drone strike blamed on Russia
-
French content creators gear up to influence presidential election
-
France hits Shein with 22 mn euros in new fines over consumer violations
-
DRC coach prepared to play friendly behind closed doors
-
Ukraine drones hit Saint Petersburg as 'Russian Davos' opens
-
CBS News fires '60 Minutes' veteran Scott Pelley
-
Robots, supply strain: five hot topics at Computex
-
Pope Leo prepares to visit polarised, secular Spain
-
Formula One ace Leclerc extends contract with 'second family' Ferrari
-
Hundreds flee as South Africa anti-migrant mobs go door-to-door
-
Drone strikes close Kuwait airport as Iran and US clash in Gulf
-
Ukraine drones hit Saint Petersburg as flagship economic forum opens
-
Iran World Cup squad to reach Mexico early Sunday
-
Indian stars push to end elephants in Bollywood
-
OECD cuts 2026 global growth forecasts over Mideast war fallout
-
'Blind spots': drone alert lays bare Lithuania poor shelter access
-
French UFC fighter Gane blocking out politics before White House bout
-
England aim to erase Ashes scars against New Zealand
-
50 years after Olympic glory, Comaneci's homecoming sparks hope of new path to perfection
-
'No hiding' as Haiti thrash New Zealand in pre-World Cup friendly
-
Military seeks prison time for Indonesian soldiers in acid attack
-
'Animalistic horror': Russia puts war art on display
-
German alleged rape victim battles time limit on abuse cases
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.
J.Bergmann--BTB