06.2.4 Integration and Affirmative Action
06.2.4 Integration and Affirmative Action
注: integrate: 融合; [firm:(1)n.公司；(2)adj.牢固的->affirm: vt.肯定->)Affirmative (=Supporting) Action (支持、鼓励聘用女性、少数族裔等受歧视者的)积极行动或措施，反歧视行动。
In the landmark (里程碑) case (=suitcase案例) of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the US Supreme Court ruled (vt.裁决) that separate schools for different races were ―(inhere: vt.继承->) inherently (unequal‖ and that
取消隔离措施) all educational (facilitate=help->) facilities (设备, 设施). The struggle (n.斗争) to integrate schools met with (遇到) strong local (resist: vt.->）resistance (抵制) and sporadic (=occasional偶发的) violence (暴力), but schools were integrated. The government persuaded universities to use Affirmative Action guidelines (扶持少数民族的政策) to bring in (=enroll/ enlist招收) minority
students even when their test scores were below those (=scores) of white students who were being
The government provided money to those universities which showed progress in integration; federal Marshalls (马歇尔计划) – and private organizations such as the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People <美>全国有色人种协进会]–brought lawsuits against (起诉) universities which discriminated (歧视) against minority students. These actions (诉讼案) were highly successful in integrating [institute: (1)n.学院研究所; (2)vt.创立->] institutions (大学) of
even while there have been
挫折).
The Bakke (1978) decision ruled that it is ―reverse discrimination (逆向歧视)‖ and unconstitutional (不符合宪法的) to set quotas (配额) for minorities at the expense (=at the cost of…以…为代价) of qualified (高质量的) white students. This of course begs (=raise引发) the question (=topic): does the Equal Protection
Affirmative Action (扶持少数名族的政策或行动). The Court ruled that diversity (多样性) could be taken into account (考虑) in admissions (招生) decisions (决策), but quotas (配额制) could not be mentioned (不能提, 不登大雅之堂). In 1991, Congress (国会) outlawed (vt.把...视为非法) the practice (做法) of ―race-norming [标准, 规范the process (n.工艺; vt.加工) of statistically adjusting (调整) the
scores (分数) of minority job (apply: n. vt.申请,应用) applicants (申请) on job- qualification tests (资质考试) by rating (vt.评分) each test-taker's score against (参照) the results of others in
his or her racial or ethnic group.]‖where universities compared only black student scores to each other before adjusting them upward (调高分数) to match (与…匹配) white student scores for admissions decisions; (sequence: n.顺序
->sequent: adj.按顺序排列的->subsequent: adj.结果的->) subsequently (adv.结果) the Supreme Court agreed that race-norming (The practice of adjusting scores on a standardize d test by using separate curves for different racial groups.) hurts white students. With the white backlash (后坐力, 阻力, 反对) in the 1990s against the claims of ―preferential treatment(偏袒)‖ for minority students, President Clinton
(重申) his support for Affirmative Action, saying, ―Mend it, don’t end (废除) it‖ (quoted in Engstrom, 1998: 301). This (capsule胶囊->) encapsulates (包封; 给...下了定论) the majority view (n.观点) that history requires some strategy (=policy策略) favoring (vt.偏袒, 支持) minority uplift (提升), but that previous (以前的) discrimination (歧视行为) against one group does not warrant (保证) present discrimination against another. In 2001, a Federal Court of Appeals upheld (=support) Affirmative Action (扶持少数民族的法案) but showed its ambivalence (歧义) by ruling (裁决) that the
University of Georgia’s policy was unconstitutional because it was based upon racial
(仅仅考虑一个因素) and did not take into account (考虑) other factors (因素), such as life experiences (生活阅历) or talents (才华) (Steinberg, 2001). Two years later, in spite of (尽管) President Bush asking (=requiring要求) the US Supreme Court to declare (宣布) the policy unconstitutional, the Justices ruled 5–4 that the University of Michigan Law School (法学院) policy of taking race as a factor in selecting students was appropriate (恰当的) (Greenhouse, 2003). Clearly, it is difficult to balance (vt.平衡) equal protection (法律面前人人平等) and equal opportunity (机会均等) with a history of disadvantage (n.不利，劣势) and discrimination (歧视) in a multicultural society (多元文化).
Another problem is that community schools are located in (位于) suburbs and cities, reflecting the race, ethnicity (宗教), and class (阶级) of the homeowners (住户). In the 1960s, the Supreme
Court tried to solve (解决) this residential segregation (隔离) dilemma (进退维谷的处境) by ordering (命令) school districts to use ―busing‖ to transport inner-city (城中村) children to suburban schools, and vice versa (反之亦然). Because public schools are funded (资助) primarily (=mainly) by property taxes, the middle class resisted this practice (做法) of taking students from well-financed school environments and placing (安置) them in schools which lacked (vt./n.缺乏) the basics (基本条件). African Americans protested (抗议) that busing destroyed (打乱) their inner-city neighborhoods (社区环境) and asked instead for more monetary (货币形式的) assistance (=financial help经济资助) to keep their children in local schools. Whites increasingly put their children in private schools or (flee->) fled (->fled=escaped逃跑) further into the suburbs. Finally, in 1974, the Court reversed (逆转, 推翻) itself and argued (=said) that local control of the schools was a deeply-rooted (根深蒂固的) tradition that should be upheld
(=supported支持). Only real residential integration (居住上的融合) can solve the problem, and Americans of all races continue to segregate (分散居住) themselves socially by class, race, and increasingly by language as (=when) Hispanic immigration rises (崛起). In 2004, only 30 percent of American schools were significantly (=thoroughly) integrated (合并)—the same percentage as in 1969 (Dobbs, 2004).