Connecticut
Connecticut’s state and education leaders respond to Supreme Court decision on affirmative action
(WFSB) – Affirmative action at colleges and universities has been struck down by the Supreme Court.
The decision has been both applauded and condemned.
Connecticut’s state and education leaders are voicing their thoughts about the decision that could impact the college admission landscape.
As the ruling came down from the Supreme Court, a split decision of feelings has now been cast across the education field.
“It’s an outrage that the supreme court in 2023 can try to pretend that race and racism don’t matter and don’t exist,” said CT Attorney General William Tong.
“This decision is a step towards making sure that all of us have an opportunity to be evaluated on who we are on the inside, rather than simply an account of our race or skin color,” said Carol Liebau, President, Yankee Institute.
Affirmative action, a policy put in place in the early 60′s, was meant to level the education playing field.
The policy was put in place to ensure that minority students had an equal chance of getting into colleges as their white counterparts.
Yankee Institute President Carol Liebau believes the ruling is the right one and allows students to be judged on their merits.
“By the time you get to college, it really isn’t fair to any of these young people to simply, at the 11th hour, decide we’ll rectify the wrongs that were done earlier by discriminating on the basis of race,” Liebau said.
The state’s other colleges and universities like Yale, Quinnipiac, and UConn, separately issued statements condemning the ruling and maintaining diversity will remain in their schools.
“It is essential to UConn’s mission as a public university that we create and maintain a student body in which people of all races, ethnicities, and backgrounds can thrive.”
Some students feel the same way.
“I think it’s very important to see faces and learn about other people as well. So it’d be better if all the schools were more diverse,” said Michelle Sialcis, UConn Senior.
“If these large institutions have the freedom to not consider diversity when admitting their incoming class, then all of these people, especially those of low income of color who have been striving so hard for their dream school, won’t have the opportunity,” said Fatima Sampedro-Valle, Yale.
Schools are saying they will re-evaluate their admissions policies and, through the law, make sure their schools maintain diversity.
Copyright 2023 WFSB. All rights reserved.
Connecticut
Opinion: The CT citizens locked out at the ballot box
As voters across Connecticut were casting ballots in this year’s presidential election, over 5,400 residents were being denied the right to vote because of Connecticut’s felony disenfranchisement law, which precludes those currently serving sentences for felonies from casting a ballot.
This practice perpetuates racial and economic injustice, and it undermines the central tenet of participatory democracy: that every citizen have a say over the laws that govern them. To ensure the equal and just treatment of its citizenry, Connecticut should end this practice.
In fact, Connecticut has a chance to become a national leader by ending felony disenfranchisement. Too often throughout history, the state has been among the last to dismantle policies that suppress the political power of communities of color. In 1818, Connecticut limited voting to white people, a restriction it did not repeal until 1876 —six years after the 15th Amendment prohibited racial discrimination in voting. By contrast, every other state in New England enfranchised Black residents before the Civil War.
In 1855, Connecticut was the first state to adopt a literacy test to restrict voting rights, a tactic that would become widely adopted in the Jim Crow South to systematically disenfranchise Black voters. Over a century later, when the Voting Rights Act finally banned the practice nationwide, Connecticut was one of the few states where this policy was still in effect.
Connecticut’s existing felony disenfranchisement policy continues to perpetuate the state’s legacy of suppressing the political power of minority communities. Black and Hispanic residents are incarcerated in Connecticut at nearly 10 and four times the rate of white residents, respectively. This over-representation is no coincidence: racial bias and discrimination are pervasive in the criminal legal system, leading to racially disparate outcomes in sentencing and convictions.
The impact of disenfranchisement also extends far beyond the individuals who have been stripped of their right to vote. Without a voice at the ballot box, incarcerated people are unable to cast votes in the interest of their neighborhoods, their children and families.
The effects ripple across communities —and because Connecticut remains one of the most segregated states in the country, the harm is concentrated in areas already grappling with the impacts of systemic discrimination. These are communities that face chronically underfunded schools, limited access to essential resources like grocery stores, childcare, and healthcare services, and more. By stripping those with felony convictions of their right to vote, Connecticut dilutes the political power of communities that most need to be heard.
In 2021, Connecticut took a meaningful step forward by restoring the vote to individuals on parole —but the state should do more. Connecticut should join Vermont, Maine, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico in granting universal suffrage regardless of incarceration status. It is the right thing to do as a matter of racial and economic justice.
It is also sound, pragmatic policy that promotes safe communities: studies show that voting strengthens ties between individuals and their communities and reduces recidivism among those reintegrating post-incarceration. Finally, universal suffrage would augment the political power of minority groups that have too often been marginalized in our political conversations.
Connecticut has an opportunity —and a responsibility— to advance racial and economic justice, strengthen its democracy, and promote safer communities by ensuring that every citizen, regardless of conviction status, has the right to vote.
Arianna Khan, Ethan Seidenberg, and Lauren Taylor are students in the Civil Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School.
Connecticut
Woman and 4-month-old boy killed in Hartford shooting
Connecticut
Smoke from MA fire noticed from Southington to New Haven
GREAT BARRINGTON, MA (WFSB) – Smoke from a large fire in Massachusetts wafted into Connecticut.
The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection said on Tuesday morning that smoke from the fire in Great Barrington traveled south into the state.
“Many residents from Southington to New Haven and beyond may be noticing a strong smell of smoke and haze [Tuesday] morning,” DEEP said.
DEEP said that Tuesday’s weather conditions caused smoke to spread widely and stay close to the ground. That’s what made it more noticeable.
“Local officials are monitoring the situation,” it said. “If you’re sensitive to smoke, consider staying indoors and keeping windows closed until conditions improve.”
More on the forecast can be read in the technical discussion from Channel 3’s meteorologists here.
Copyright 2024 WFSB. All rights reserved.
-
News1 week ago
Herbert Smith Freehills to merge with US-based law firm Kramer Levin
-
Technology1 week ago
The next Nintendo Direct is all about Super Nintendo World’s Donkey Kong Country
-
Business7 days ago
Column: OpenAI just scored a huge victory in a copyright case … or did it?
-
Health7 days ago
Bird flu leaves teen in critical condition after country's first reported case
-
Business3 days ago
Column: Molly White's message for journalists going freelance — be ready for the pitfalls
-
Politics1 week ago
Editorial: Abortion was on ballots across the country in this election. The results are encouraging
-
World1 week ago
Sarah Palin, NY Times Have Explored Settlement, as Judge Sets Defamation Retrial
-
Politics2 days ago
Trump taps FCC member Brendan Carr to lead agency: 'Warrior for Free Speech'