Affirmative action may not be the most divisive issue on the ballot, but it re

游客2025-01-01 21

问题 Affirmative action may not be the most divisive issue on the ballot, but it remains an unending source of conflict and debate  at least in Michigan, whose citizens are pondering a proposal that would ban affirmative action in the public sector. No one knows whether other states will follow Michigan’s lead, but partisans on both sides see the vote as crucial--a decision that could either help or hinder a movement aimed at ending "preferential treatment" programs once and for all.
  Ward Connerly has no doubts about the outcome. "There may be some ups and downs...with regard to affirmative action, but it’s ending, "says Connerly, the main mover behind the Michigan proposal, who pushed almost identical propositions to passage in California 10 years ago and in Washington state two years later. His adversaries are equally passionate. "I just want to shout from the rooftops, ’This isn’t good for America’, "says Mary Sue Coleman, president of the University of Michigan. She sees no need for Michigan to adopt the measure. "We have a living experiment in California, and it has failed, ’says Coleman.
  Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, sees something deeply symbolic in the battle. Michigan, in his eyes, is where resegregation began--with a 1974 U. S. Supreme Court decision that tossed out a plan to bus Detroit children to the suburbs. Henderson sees that decision as a prelude to the hypersegregation that now defines much of Michigan. The Supreme Court is currently considering two new cases that could lead to another ruling on how far public school systems can go in their quest to maintain racial balance.
  All of which raises a question: why are we still wrestling with this stuff? Why, more than a quarter of a century after the high court ruled race had a legitimate place in university admissions decisions, are we still fighting over whether race should play a role?
  One answer is that the very idea of affirmative action--that is, systematically treating members of various groups differently in the pursuit of diversity or social justice--strikes some people as downright immoral. For to believe in affirmative action is to believe in a concept of equality turned upside down. It is to believe that "to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently, " as the idea was expressed by U. S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun.
  That argument has never been an easy sell, even when made passionately by President Lyndon B. Johnson during an era in which prejudice was thicker than L. A. smog. Now the argument is infinitely more difficult to make. Even those generally supportive of affirmative action don’t like the connotations it sometimes carries. "No one wants preferential treatment, including African-Americans, "observed Ed Sarpolis, vice president of EPIC-MRA, a Michigan polling firm.
  In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan’s right to use race in the pursuit of "diversity," even as it condemned the way the undergraduate school had chosen to do so. The decision left Jennifer Gratz, the named plaintiff, fuming. "I called Ward Connerly... and I said, ’We need to do something about this’, " recalled Gratz, an animated former cheerleader. They decided that if the Supreme Court wouldn’t give them what they wanted, they would take their case--and their proposition--directly to the people.
  Californians disagree about the impact of Connerly’s proposition on their state. But despite some exceedingly grim predictions, the sky did not fall in. Most people went about their lives much as they always had.
  In a sane world, the battle in Michigan, and indeed the battle over affirmative action writ large, would offer an opportunity to seriously engage a question the enemies and defenders of affirmative action claim to care about: how do you go about creating a society where all people--not just the lucky few--have the opportunities they deserve? It is a question much broader than the debate over affirmative action. But until we begin to move toward an answer, the debate over affirmative action will continue--even if it is something of a sideshow to what should be the main event. [br] All of the following can be inferred from the passage EXCEPT that

选项 A、Harry Blackmun used to support affirmative action.
B、in Lyndon Johnson’s tenure, segregation haunted the US.
C、Ed Sarpolis is generally in favor of affirmative action.
D、African-Americans are main movers behind the Michigan proposal.

答案 D

解析推断题。根据题目顺序及选项中出现的专有名词定位至第五段。末句提到Harry Blackmun的观点： to treat some persons equally…，与首句中affirmative action的内容一致，[A]符合文意。第六段首句： President Lyndon B.Johnson…prejudice was thicker than L.A.smog，可见Lyndon任总统期间，种族问题非常严重，[B]符合文意。第三句提到"Even those generally supportive of affirmative action don’t like…", 接着提到Ed Sarpolis的观点，按照英文文章行文结构，在提出观点后，作者要对其进行说明，故判断Ed Saprolis对该法案整体支持，但也有微词，[C]符合文意。只有[D]无依据，故为答案。

转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3893682.html

相关试题推荐

随机试题

最新回复(0)

Affirmative action may not be the most divisive issue on the ballot, but it re

BlackAmericanshaveservedwithhonorineveryAmericanmilitaryaction,tho

Notsurprisingly,interactionamongpeoplesofdifferentculturesisoftenfi