Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim speaks to CNBC’s Martin Soong about affirmative action policies and how Elon Musk’s SpaceX will give “confidence and participation of our players” in Malaysia.
Issue of affirmative action should extend from being race based to need based, Malaysia’s PM says
- Update Date：
- Post Date：
- Tags
The best PM in my lifetime 😊 (from 4-10) PMX 🫰
Thanks @CNBC International TV for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action.
1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*.
2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally.
3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally.
4) The Court also looked at the idea of “strict scrutiny*”. This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.
5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools’ use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools’ use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed.
6) The Court also said that the schools’ admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools’ admissions systems were not fair.
7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools’ use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed.
8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant’s life. They can look at how an applicant’s experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences.
9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools’ use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough.
10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race.
*The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality.
*Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.
Happy Independence Day for MALAYSIA
Mhthir s affirmative action has failed by 2020
Mahathir has left a string of race base politic it has divided the people, hope Anwar will unite all Malaysian like Tenku Abdul Rahman did,
He destroys Malaysia and he left a policy that is hard to dismantle and at the same time unsustainable as 30% of the population trying to support 70% of population of bumiputra
What year you were born kids? Dont you know 1969 happened because of divided races in our country, thanks to divide and rule practised by british.
If meritocracy applied, the same thing could happen again.
Anwar campaign this just for election. Dont believe me? Watch how Anwar answered that girl student in Penang.
He has become senile
Race base is very short-sighted initiated by selfish politicians.
Don’t ever go down that path
Standing in the eye of the world. Wish all Malaysian politician can speak multiple language as good as our PMX
NATO PMX
Even in good faith I seriously doubt Anwar Ibrahim could reform Far-Right Malay Nationalism and authoritarian religious conservative culture in Malaysia.
its almost possible, this country is damaged beyond repair.
@Ðionysus Maybe national separation/divorce from Malaysia like Penang and North Borneo(Sabah) as independent nation to safeguard Chinese and Indian diaspora community but you guys don’t have military apparatus to independence.
Exceptions are not given to the average Joe, only white people like Elon will get green light. If you’re Indian or Chinese tough luck only MALAYS can open companies lol.
This guy will tell one story to to western outward world, but within Malaysia his views are completely different, he TRULY LOVES his affirmative action.
Nothing going to happen. Dream on same boat.