Peterson Melanie R, Kowolik Joan E, Coleman Gary, Dietrich Susan, Mascarenhas Ana Karina, McCunniff Michael, Taylor George
School of Dentistry, Room 218, University of Louisville, 501 S. Preston Street, Louisville, KY 40292, USA.
J Dent Educ. 2004 Sep;68(9):932-7.
In June 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of using race as a factor in higher education admissions decisions. This article considers the impact of the Supreme Court decisions on admissions procedures at selected academic dental institutions (ADI) and their parent institutions. We interviewed fifty-eight leaders considered to be individual stakeholders at seven ADI and their related parent institutions, state dental associations, and state legislatures using a common set of questions about the Supreme Court decisions. Educators from the ADI and their parent institutions were consistent in their responses that the rulings upheld affirmative action as necessary to achieve diversity. State organized dentistry officials did not appear to be as aware as others of the rulings, whereas legislators were mixed in their responses. Except for the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions procedures, it remains to be seen what the impact will be for other higher education institutions and for academic dental institutions. Although the rulings have provided guidelines for achieving diversity using race/ ethnicity as one of several factors, the rulings will possibly be challenged, thus requiring vigilance on the part of parent institutions and their ADI to ensure compliance with the spirit of the rulings and to avoid attack from opponents of affirmative action.
2003年6月,美国最高法院维持了在高等教育录取决策中使用种族作为一个因素的合宪性。本文探讨了最高法院的这一裁决对部分学术性牙科机构(ADI)及其母体机构录取程序的影响。我们使用一组关于最高法院裁决的通用问题,采访了七所ADI及其相关母体机构、州牙科协会和州立法机构中被视为个体利益相关者的58位负责人。ADI及其母体机构的教育工作者在回应中一致认为,这些裁决支持将平权行动视为实现多元化所必需的措施。州牙科组织官员似乎不像其他人那样了解这些裁决,而立法者的回应则各不相同。除了密歇根大学的本科录取程序外,其他高等教育机构和学术性牙科机构的影响还有待观察。尽管这些裁决提供了以种族/族裔作为多个因素之一来实现多元化的指导方针,但这些裁决可能会受到质疑,因此母体机构及其ADI需要保持警惕,以确保遵守裁决的精神,并避免受到平权行动反对者的攻击。