ChaseDream
搜索
123下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 4850|回复: 29
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[阅读小分队] 揽瓜阁做题小分队 第48天 美国隔离法案

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2021-5-17 16:21:42 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |正序浏览 |阅读模式


请大家在本帖回复:
1. 文章大概结构
2. 自己写的答案

解析+文章翻译明晚微信群里公布

报名活动,加微信号killgmat



Some of the legal remedies that the United States Supreme Court’s 1955 Brown II decision prescribed to eliminate racially segregated education were faulty because they failed to take into account important findings of a sociological study on community experiences in school desegregation. First, the Court assigned primary responsibility for school desegregation to local school authorities and to U.S. district courts because it believed that these local entities could best change local regulations and thereby accomplish school desegregation. But the study had found that successful desegregation could occur in places where regulations permitted other local institutions to remain segregated. Second, the Court instructed school authorities to admit racial minorities to public schools as soon as practicable, yet it also said that school authorities would be viewed as making good faith efforts if they proceeded “with all deliberate speed,” rather than acting immediately. But the study had found that unclear policies create confusion and facilitate resistance, whereas clear-cut policies administered with resolution and decisiveness early in the process are of great importance in accomplishing desegregation with a minimum of difficulty. Sadly, as a result of such flaws in the Court’s remedies, the opportunity to attend integrated schools was denied to many minority students for up to a decade after the original Supreme Court decision.


1. The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. describe the effects of a Supreme Court decision on school desegregation
B. trace the origins of a Supreme Court decision on school desegregation
C. explain why a Supreme Court decision overlooked certain research findings
D. compare different legal remedies for school segregation
E. give reasons for the limited success of a Supreme Court decision on school desegregation


2.The author of the passage mentions the findings of a particular sociological study primarily in order to establish which of the following?
A. Whether school authorities made good faith efforts to desegregate their schools
B. What kinds of difficulties school authorities faced in desegregating their schools
C. What role local school authorities and U.S. district courts could have played in desegregating schools
D. How school desegregation could have been implemented more effectively
E. How much resistance there was to the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision


3.The author of the passage suggests that the Supreme Court’s instruction to school authorities to use “all deliberate speed” had which of the following consequences?
A. Schools were desegregated as soon as was practicable.
B. School desegregation was accompanied by a certain amount of confusion.
C. School desegregation proceeded more quickly than the desegregation of other local institutions.
D. School authorities took immediate steps to begin the desegregation process.
E. School authorities made good faith efforts to desegregate their schools.


参考答案:
EDB





收藏收藏 收藏收藏
30#
发表于 2021-11-4 17:09:55 | 只看该作者
Some of the legal remedies of Brown II decision were faulty
Reason:1, local regulations still permitted some other local institutions to remain segregated. 2, Policies ambiguous create confusion and facilitate resistance
Result: many minority students can not attend integrated schools

1,E mian idea
2,D no sure, i feel none of them is right, since the study establish that some of the legal remedies of Brown II decision were faulty.
3,B,
,,,“with all deliberate speed,” rather than acting immediately. But the study had found that unclear policies create confusion and facilitate resistance,,,
29#
发表于 2021-11-4 13:41:43 | 只看该作者
Day48 EDB
28#
发表于 2021-6-12 20:58:30 | 只看该作者
edb
作者首先表明自己的态度有些法规是不合理的。因为忽略了某些重要的社会学方面的发现,举例两点。
最后再次强调遗憾的是,这样的法规漏洞会耽误很多少数种族的学生上学
27#
发表于 2021-6-8 17:03:49 发自 iPhone | 只看该作者
ede
26#
发表于 2021-6-7 20:39:18 | 只看该作者
EDB
作者认为美国1955 Brown II修正案有一些错误的地方,没有将一个学校去种族隔离的社会实验结果考虑进去,第一是让local school authority和district court完全掌管去种族隔离的权力,尤其是社会实验表明让一些当地的机构保持种族隔离会使得学校的去种族隔离更快更有效;第二是让地方有自治权来决定什么时候实行去种族隔离政策而不是立即执行,这个方法造成了confusion, 政策的缺陷使得整整一代少数族裔不能进入融合的学校。
25#
发表于 2021-6-7 16:07:04 | 只看该作者
EDB
24#
发表于 2021-5-31 15:56:39 | 只看该作者
ECB
23#
发表于 2021-5-27 18:02:09 | 只看该作者
EBB
22#
发表于 2021-5-27 16:47:09 | 只看该作者
ebb
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-30 05:43
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部