-
Colombian judge bans strikes on guerrillas if minors are present
-
Carreras reverts to fullback as Argentina change four for Australia Test
-
Khachanov shocks ailing Auger-Aliassime, Swiatek and Osaka advance at US Open
-
Wilson back to lead Australia as Kiss rotates team for Argentina
-
Lone juror blocking verdict in US mother's child murder trial: defense
-
Yen surges on new intervention talk, US stocks rally
-
'Kinda chic' - Williams sisters set to launch US Open doubles bid
-
Japan's Ueda fires Lille top of Ligue 1 on debut
-
Volkswagen says cutting 100,000 jobs by end of decade
-
Arsenal chief executive reveals 'dynasty' ambition
-
Russia slaps curfew on charity director over army criticism
-
Spanish PM says no 'solid proof' Morocco planned migrant rush
-
Ailing Auger-Aliassime upset by Khachanov at US Open
-
Iran war is not a war, US VP Vance says
-
Richarlison omitted from Tottenham's Premier League squad
-
Khachanov stuns third-seeded Auger-Aliassime in US Open second round
-
How El Nino is choking the Panama Canal
-
Bordeaux facing sixth-tier football after French federation upholds relegation
-
Hamilton drives his Ferrari dream at Monza
-
Stoic Verstappen looking beyond 'painful' Monza weekend
-
Senegal has an IMF loan, now what?
-
OpenAI begins rollout of new powerful AI model GPT-6 Astra
-
Auger-Aliassime upset by Khachanov at US Open
-
FIFA blasts UEFA 'smear campaign,' fights World Cup plan disclosures
-
Hugging Face, the French start-up that became AI's warehouse
-
Zelensky hopes to host US envoys in Kyiv in 'coming days'
-
World Cup winner Llorente retires from Spain team at 31
-
Martinelli joins Al-Hilal from Arsenal for reported £60 million
-
Osaka squeezes into US Open third round
-
Tesla's semi-autonomous driving could be adapted to EU norms: France
-
Apple faces £2 bn lawsuit in UK over app privacy feature
-
37 people die from fumes during oil pipeline theft in Nigeria: NGO
-
Former champ Swiatek eases into US Open third round
-
Ahead of elections, Israel tests West's patience on West Bank violence
-
DR Congo latest to promise moving Israel embassy to Jerusalem
-
Antonelli will obey Mercedes orders to help 'tow' teammate Russell
-
War criminal Mladic's body returns to Serbia with military honours
-
UK fintech Revolut gains conditional US banking licence
-
Pierre Cardin museum brings designer's futurist style to Venice
-
Mara sisters channel childhood energy for twins performance at Venice
-
Slovenian rookie Omrzel triumphs as Mas extends Vuelta lead
-
UN's Sudan probe says foreign fighters fuelling conflict
-
British, French leaders talk migrants, EU relations
-
Violence erupts at S.Africa anti-migrant protest
-
Heading for Ferrari's home race, Leclerc still dreams of world title
-
Nothing left: Nepal flood survivors face loss and uncertainty
-
Cafe at centre of Israel culture clash agrees to shut on Sabbath
-
Tesla to launch self-driving 'Cybercab' in Texas
-
Spacecraft bound for Mercury begins 'tricky' arrival
-
Europe struggles to respond as Russia escalates shadow warfare
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