Connect with us

Published

on

WASHINGTON – The US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down race-conscious student admissions programmes currently used at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC).

It is a sharp setback to affirmative action policies often used to increase the number of Black, Hispanic and other under-represented minority groups on campuses.

The justices ruled in favour of a group called Students for Fair Admissions, founded by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, in its appeal of lower court rulings upholding programmes used at the two prestigious schools to foster a diverse student population.

The decision, powered by the courts conservative justices with the liberal justices in dissent, was 6-3 against the University of North Carolina and 6-2 against Harvard. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did not participate in the Harvard case.

The affirmative action cases represented the latest major rulings powered by the Supreme Courts conservative majority.

The court in June 2022 overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalised abortion nationwide and widened gun rights in a pair of landmark rulings.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said, Harvard and UNC admissions programmes cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause, referring to the US Constitutions promise of equal protection under the law.

At the same time, Justice Roberts said, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicants discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.

Many institutions of higher education, corporations and military leaders have long backed affirmative action on campuses.

The move had been not simply to remedy racial inequity and exclusion in American life, but to ensure a talent pool that can bring a range of perspectives to the workplace and US armed forces ranks.

According to Harvard, around 40 per cent of US colleges and universities consider race in some fashion.

Harvard and UNC have said they use race as only one factor in a host of individualised evaluations for admission without quotas permissible under previous Supreme Court precedents.

They said curbing its consideration would cause a significant drop in enrolment of students from under-represented groups.

Critics, who have tried to topple these policies for decades, argue these policies are themselves discriminatory.

Many US conservatives and Republican elected officials have argued that giving advantages to one race is unconstitutional, regardless of the motivation or circumstances. More On This Topic Need a university degree to get a good job? Not for much longer How many uni places are there for S'poreans? Is there a quota for poly grads? Some have advanced the argument that remedial preferences are no longer needed because the US has moved beyond racist policies of the past such as segregation and is becoming increasingly diverse.

The dispute presented the Supreme Courts conservative majority an opportunity to overturn its prior rulings allowing race-conscious admissions policies.

Mr Blums group in lawsuits filed in 2014 accused UNC of discriminating against white and Asian-American applicants, and Harvard of bias against Asian-American applicants.

Students for Fair Admissions alleged that the adoption by UNC, a public university, of an admissions policy that is not race-neutral, violates the guarantee to equal protection of the law under the US Constitutions 14th Amendment.

The group contended Harvard, a private university, violated Title VI of a landmark federal law called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race, colour or national origin under any programme or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

Lower courts rejected the groups claims.

That decision prompted appeals to the US Supreme Court, asking the justices to overturn a key precedent holding that colleges could consider race as one factor in the admissions process because of the compelling interest of creating a diverse student body.

Affirmative action has withstood Supreme Court scrutiny for decades, most recently in a 2016 ruling involving a white student, backed by Mr Blum, who sued the University of Texas after being rejected for admission.

The Supreme Court has shifted rightwards since 2016 and now includes three justices who dissented in the University of Texas case and three new appointees by former Republican president Donald Trump. REUTERS More On This Topic NUS and NTU among top 5 Asian universities in Times rankings NUS enters top 10 in global university ranking for the first time

Continue Reading

Politics

Abolishing Ofwat and compulsory water meters – key recommendations from landmark report into ‘broken’ water industry

Published

on

By

'Broken' water industry set to be overhauled - nine key recommendations from landmark report

The system for regulating water companies in England and Wales should be overhauled and replaced with one single body in England and another in Wales, a once-in-a-generation review of the sector has advised.

The report, which includes 88 recommendations, suggests a new single integrated regulator to replace existing water watchdogs, mandatory water metering, and a social tariff for vulnerable customers.

The ability to block companies being taken over and the creation of eight new regional water authorities, with another for all of Wales to deliver local priorities, has also been suggested.

Money blog: Funeral director on why she speaks to dead people

The review, the largest into the water industry since privatisation in the 1980s, was undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, a career civil servant and former deputy governor of the Bank of England who oversaw the biggest clean-up of Britain’s banking system in the wake of the financial crash.

File pic: iStock
Image:
File pic: iStock

He was coaxed out of retirement by Environment Secretary Steve Reed to lead the Independent Water Commission.

Final recommendations of the commission have been published on Monday morning to clean up the sector and improve public confidence, as bills rise 36% over the next five years. Here are its nine key recommendations:

More on Sewage

• Single integrated water regulators – a single water regulator in England and a single water regulator in Wales. In England, this would replace Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and water-environment related functions from the Environment Agency and Natural England. In Wales, Ofwat’s economic responsibilities would be integrated into Natural Resources Wales.

It’s hoped this will solve the “fragmented and overlapping” regulation, and more stable regulation will improve investor confidence. Communications regulator Ofcom was given as an example of how combining five existing regulators into one worked.

• Eight new regional water system planning authorities in England and one national authority in Wales to be responsible for water investment plans reflecting local priorities and streamlining the planning processes.

The new authorities would be independent, made up of representatives from local councils, public health officials, environmental advocates, agricultural voices and consumers. The aim is they could direct funding and ensure accountability from all sectors impacting water.

• Greater consumer protection – this includes upgrading the consumer body Consumer Council for Water, into an Ombudsman for Water to give stronger protection to customers and a clearer route to resolving complaints. Advocacy duties are to be transferred to Citizens Advice.

• Stronger environmental regulation, including compulsory water meters. Also proposed by Sir Jon are changes to wholesale tariffs for industrial users and greater water reuse and rainwater harvesting schemes. A new long-term, legally binding target for the water environment was suggested.

• Oversight of companies via the ability to block changes in ownership of water businesses when they are not seen to be prioritising the long-term interests of the company and its customers, and the addition of “public benefit” clauses in water company licences.

To boost company financial resilience, as the UK’s biggest provider, Thames Water struggles to remain in private ownership, the commission has recommended minimum financial requirements, like banks are subject to. This could mean utilities hold a certain amount of cash. It’s hoped this will, in turn, make companies more appealing to potential investors.

• The public health element of water has been recognised, and senior public health representation has been recommended for regional water planning authorities, as have new laws to address pollutants like forever chemicals and microplastics.

• Fundamental reset of economic regulation – including changes to ensure companies are investing in and maintaining assets to help attract long-term, low-risk investment. A “supervisory” approach has been recommended to intervene before things like pollution occur, rather than penalising the businesses after the event.

• Clear strategic direction – a long-term, 25-year national water strategy should be published by the UK and Welsh governments, with ministerial priorities given to water firms every five years.

• Infrastructure and asset health reforms – companies should also be required to map and assess their assets and resilience.

Nationalisation of the water industry was not in the Independent Water Commission’s terms of reference and so was not considered.

How has the report been received?

In a speech responding to Sir Jon’s report, Mr Reed is set to describe the water industry as “broken” and welcome the commission’s recommendations to ensure “the failures of the past can never happen again”.

The water industry lobby group Water UK said “fundamental change has been long overdue”.

“These recommendations should establish the foundations to secure our water supplies, support economic growth and end sewage entering our rivers and seas,” a spokesperson said.

“The Independent Water Commission has written a comprehensive, detailed review of the whole sector, with many wide-ranging and ambitious recommendations.

“Crucially, it is now up to government to decide which recommendations it will adopt, and in what way, but the commission’s work marks a significant step forward.”

Campaign group Surfers Against Sewage said the report “utterly fails to prioritise public benefit over private profit”.

“This is not transformational reform, this is putting lipstick on a pig - and you can bet the champagne is flowing in water company boardrooms across the land,” said its chief executive, Giles Bristow.

“Only one path forward remains: a full, systemic transformation that ends the ruthless pursuit of profit and puts the public good at the heart of our water services,” he said.

“We welcome Sir Jon’s calls for a national strategy, enshrining public health objectives in law and regional water planning. But we won’t be taken for fools - abolishing Ofwat and replacing it with a shinier regulator won’t stop sewage dumping or profiteering if the finance and ownership structures stay the same.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Water wars: What difference will it make?

Published

on

By

Water wars: What difference will it make?

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈

The Government announces the “Reed Reforms” to fix Britain’s water system, but will it make a difference?

Sky News’ Sam Coates and Politico’s Anne McElvoy consider if customers’ bills will go down and what practical changes will be made.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer meets with two world leaders later this week ahead of the parliamentary summer recess.

Plus, we hear about an unexpected visitor in the Coates household.

Continue Reading

Technology

U.S. firms scramble to secure rare-earth magnets — imports from China surge 660%

Published

on

By

U.S. firms scramble to secure rare-earth magnets — imports from China surge 660%

Annealed neodymium iron boron magnets sit in a barrel at a Neo Material Technologies Inc. factory in Tianjin, China on June 11, 2010.

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

China’s exports of rare-earth magnets to the United States in June surged more than seven times from the prior month, as American firms clamor to get hold of the critical elements following a preliminary Sino-U.S. trade deal.

In April, Beijing placed restrictions on several critical magnets, used in advanced tech such as electric vehicles, wind turbines and MRI machines, requiring firms to receive licenses for export. The move was seen as retaliation against U.S. President Donald Trump’s steep tariffs on China. 

Beijing has a stranglehold on the production of rare-earth magnets, with an estimated 90% of the market, as well as a similar hold on the refining of rare-earth elements, which are used to make magnets. 

The U.S. received about 353 metric tons of rare-earth permanent magnets in June, up 660% from the previous month, data released by China’s General Administration of Customs showed, though the exports were about half that from June last year.

The U.S. was the second-largest destination for China’s rare-earth magnets, behind Germany, as it relies heavily on their imports for its large manufacturing sector, particularly automotive, electronics and renewable energy. 

In total, China exported 3,188 metric tons of rare earth permanent magnets globally last month, up nearly 160% from May, but 38% lower compared with the same period last year.

The growth in exports came after Washington and Beijing agreed last month on a trade framework that included easing controls on Chinese rare-earth exports as well as a rollback of some American tech restrictions for shipments to China. 

Pentagon invests in MP Materials, guarantees floor price for rare earth minerals

AI behemoth Nvidia said last week it was planning to resume shipments of its H20 AI chips to China, after the exports were restricted in April. Last month, controls on American AI chip software companies’ business in China had also been rolled back.

Chinese rare-earth magnet producers started announcing the approval of export licenses last month.

If exports continue to increase, it will be of great benefit to companies that have been suffering from shortages of magnets due to the lengthy time required to secure export licenses. For example, several European auto-parts suppliers were forced to halt production in recent months. 

The magnet shortages had also hit emerging industries such as humanoid robotics. In April, Elon Musk said production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robots had been disrupted

China’s controls on its rare-earths sector have prompted some global governments to reexamine their rare-earth supply chains and search for ways to support domestic mining of the minerals. 

However, experts say that setting up alternatives to China’s rare-earth magnet supply chain could take years, as it requires an intricate process of rare-earth element refining and separation. 

“The separation process is quite complex, and China has a lot of advantages in this after putting in decades of research into the processes,” Yue Wang, a senior consultant of rare earths at Wood Mackenzie, told CNBC last month. 

One way that the U.S. has been trying to compensate for lack of rare-earth magnets is through increased recycling. Apple and miner MP Materials announced a $500 million deal last week for the development of a recycling facility that will reinforce the iPhone maker’s U.S. magnet supply chain.

Peter Alexander from financial consultancy Z-ben Advisors said that Washington’s latest concessions on tech restrictions were a reflection of just how much leverage China has in its trade relationship with the United States, speaking on CNBC’s “China Connection” on Monday.

Continue Reading

Trending