Text 2

　　For more than two decades, U.S. courts have been limiting affirmative-action programs in universities and other areas. The legal rationale is that racial preferences are unconstitutional, even those intended to compensate for racism or intolerance. For many colleges, this means students can be admitted only on merit, not on their race or ethnicity. It has been a divisive issue across the U.S., as educators blame the prolonged reaction to affirmative-action for declines in minority admissions. Meanwhile, activists continue to battle race preferences in courts from Michigan to North Carolina.

　　Now, chief executives of about two dozen companies have decided to plunge headfirst into this politically unsettled debate. They, together with 36 universities and 7 nonprofitable organizations, formed a forum that set forth an action plan essentially designed to help colleges circumvent court-imposed restrictions on affirmative action. The CEOs’ motive: “Our audience is growing more diverse, so the communities we serve benefit if our employees are racially and ethnically diverse as well”, says one CEO of a compang that owns nine television stations.

　　Among the steps the forum is pushing: finding creative yet legal ways to boost minority enrollment through new admissions policies; promoting admissions decisions that look at more than test scores; and encouraging universities to step up their minority outreach and financial aid. And to counter accusations by critics to challenge these tactics in court, the group says it will give legal assistance to colleges sued for trying them. “Diversity diminished by the court must be made up for in other legitimate, legal ways,” says, a forum member.

　　One of the more controversial methods advocated is the so-called 10% rule. The idea is for public universities—which educate three-quarters of all U.S. undergraduates—to admit students who are in the top 10% of their high school graduating class. Doing so allows colleges to take minorities who excel in average urban schools, even if they wouldn’t have made the cut under the current statewide ranking many universities use.

　　1. U.S. court restrictions on affirmative action signifies that______.

　　[A]minorities no longer hold the once favored status

　　[B]the quality of American colleges has improved

　　[C]racial preferences has replaced racial prejudice

　　[D]the minority is on an equal footing with the majority

　　2. What has been a divisive issue across the United States?

　　[A]Whether affirmative action should continue to exist.

　　[B]Whether this law is helping minorities or the white majority.

　　[C]Whether racism exists in American college admission.

　　[D]Whether racial intolerance should be punished.

　　3. CEOs of big companies decided to help colleges enroll more minority students because they_____.

　　[A]think it wrong to deprive the minorities of their rights to receive education

　　[B]want to conserve the fine characteristics of American nation

　　[C]want a workforce that reflects the diversity of their customers

　　[D]think it their duty to help develop education of the country

　　4. The major tactic the forum uses is to_____.

　　[A]battle the racial preferences in court

　　[B]support colleges involved in lawsuits of racism

　　[C]strive to settle this political debate nationwide

　　[D]find legally viable ways to ensure minority admissions

　　5. If the 10% rule is applied, ______.

　　[A]the best white high school students can get into colleges

　　[B]public universities can get excellent students

　　[C]students from poor rural families can go to colleges

　　[D]good minority students can get into public universities

　　答案

　　1. A 2.B 3.C 4.D 5.D

　　总体分析

　　本文介绍了美国法院对平等权利法案实施的限制以及社会相关方面应对这种情况所作出的努力。

　　第一段：介绍了美国法院对大学中平等权利法案实施的限制及其带来的不利影响。

　　第二段：指出多家公司与大学组成了反对这种限制的论坛及其原因。

　　第三段：介绍论坛推行的具体策略。

　　第四段：介绍论坛主张在公立大学中实施的10%规则的内容及其意义。

　　试题精解