上海检中心哪个好(河源体检手术医院哪家较好) (今日更新中)

A lawsuit against Harvard brought on behalf of Asian-American students who failed to gain admission goes to trial on Monday in one of the most consequential race cases in decades, with affirmative action policies across the country at stake.The lawsuit was crafted by conservative advocates who have long fought racial admissions practices that traditionally benefited African-American and Latino students. Their ultimate goal is to reverse the 1978 Supreme Court case that upheld admissions policies that consider the race of students for campus diversity.Parties on both sides expect the Supreme Court to eventually resolve the issue. And with President Donald Trump's two appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the high court now has five conservative justices who may be inclined to reverse the landmark ruling.The challengers are led by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who has devised a series of claims against racial policies, including an earlier affirmative action lawsuit on behalf of Abigail Fisher against the University of Texas and several challenges to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key vote in 2016 when the court last endorsed race-based admissions in the University of Texas case, was replaced by Kavanaugh earlier this month. Gorsuch succeeded the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who had opposed all affirmative action and criticized the University of Texas program, but died before that case was completed.The Students for Fair Admissions group Blum founded when he filed the Harvard case in November 2014 contends the university engages in unlawful "racial balancing" as it boosts the chances of admissions for blacks and Hispanics and lowers the chances for Asian Americans.Harvard's practices, the group says, are "the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s."That assertion has deeply resonated with some Asian Americans who fear they are held to a higher standard than other applicants to prestigious universities. Yet Asian-American advocates, representing a wide swath of backgrounds and educational experiences, have come in on both sides of the case.Some who back the lawsuit seek to end all consideration of race in admissions, while others, siding with Harvard, argue that universities should be able to consider race for campus diversity and that some Asian Americans, particularly those with ties to Southeast Asian countries, may have had fewer educational opportunities before applying to college.The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a brief on behalf of 25 Harvard student and alumni organizations comprising blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and whites. The Legal Defense Fund calls the lawsuit an effort "to sow racial division" and emphasizes the Supreme Court's repeated endorsement of the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.Those subsequent rulings, however, turned on a single vote, either that of Kennedy or Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in 2006.The Trump administration, which is separately scrutinizing of race-based admissions practices at Harvard through its Education and Justice departments based on a complaint from more than 60 Asian American groups, has backed Students for Fair Admissions.Harvard, the country's oldest institution of higher education, denies that it engages in racial balancing or limits Asian-American admissions. It defends its longstanding effort for racial diversity as part of the education mission and says admissions officers undertake a "whole-person evaluation" that includes academics, extracurricular activities, talents and personal qualities, as well as socioeconomic background and race.Since the case was first filed, both sides have mined similar statistical evidence and testimony but with sharply contrasting conclusions -- all of which will now be presented before US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs."Each party relies on its own expert reports to show the presence or absence of a negative effect of being Asian American on the likelihood of admission ... and claims that there is substantial -- or zero -- documentary and testimonial evidence of discriminatory intent," Burroughs said in an order last month rejecting requests from both sides to rule for each, respectively, before trial.The case was brought under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibiting racial discrimination at private institutions that receive federal funds.Burroughs, a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, has said she expects the trial to last about three weeks. Both sides will offer opening statements on Monday. 4719

A GoFundMe for a San Diego-area Starbucks barista who refused service to a woman who refused to wear a COVID-19 mask has now surpassed more than ,000.Last Monday, a woman took to Facebook after she said she was turned away at a Starbucks because she was not wearing a mask. At the time, San Diego County required everyone — except for those with health issues — to wear masks while in public."Meet lenen (sic) from Starbucks who refused to serve me cause I'm not wearing a mask. Next time I will wait for cops and bring a medical exemption," the woman's post was captioned.Though the woman was upset that she was not served, many on Facebook sided with the barista, Lenin."There's no reason to publicly shame a kid who's trying to work his shift like any other day," one commenter wrote."They are following what they're told. I understand your frustration But it's being at aimed at the wrong people," a second commenter wrote.Another Facebook user, Matt Cowan, was inspired to set up a GoFundMe page to collect tips for Lenin."I set it at ,000, thinking that was a reach, and we would be lucky if we hit like 0. And when we hit 0, I was overwhelmed by that," Cowan told Scripps station KGTV in San Diego last week.By Wednesday, Cowan's campaign had raised more than ,000 tips for Lenin. Over the weekend, funds continued to pour in, and as of Monday afternoon, the campaign had raised more than ,000.In an update posted to the campaign page on Sunday, Cowan reiterated that all of the funds would be going directly to Lenin, and that he had arranged for Lenin to meet with a financial adviser."Lenin has said that he plans to use some of the money to pursue his dreams of becoming a dancer," Cowan said. "He also wants to donate to some organizations in the San Diego community."In a statement last week, Starbucks said that it advises customers to heed advice on mask ordinances set by local governments."We want everyone to feel welcome in our stores. We respectfully request customers follow social distancing and safety protocols recommended by public health officials, including wearing a facial covering when visiting our stores," a Starbucks spokesperson said in a statement to KGTV. "More information on what customers can expect in our stores can be found on our At a Glance page." 2316

A drug used to treat type 2 diabetes and designed to lower glucose levels is being recalled because the manufacturer found it contained high levels of a cancer-causing agent.Marksans Pharma Limited is recalling metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets because levels of NDMA were higher than the acceptable daily intake limit, according to a release from the Food and Drug Administration.The release says the company has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall at this time.NDMA is classified as a probable human carcinogen, a substance that could cause cancer, based on results from laboratory tests. It’s a known environmental contaminant “found in water and foods, including meats, dairy products and vegetables,” according to the FDA.”These tablets are used in addition to diet and exercise to improve blood glucose control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The pills were distributed nationally to wholesalers and pharmacies.Customers with questions about the recall or have recalled medications, return to the place of purchase. The company says patients should talk to their doctors before they stop taking metformin and should continue taking it while they get a replacement.Head to the FDA’s website for a complete list of recalled lot numbers. 1302

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that the state must give voters whose mismatched signatures disqualified their provisional and mail-in ballots until Saturday at 5 p.m. ET to correct those signature problems -- extending the deadline by two days.The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker comes in a suit brought by U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson's campaign and Democratic Party officials, who are looking to the courts to help them find votes to narrow the margin in the race with Republican challenger Gov. Rick Scott.The order affects approximately 5,000 voters who sent in ballots by mail or were forced to sign provisional ballots, but whose signatures did not match those on file with the state."There are dozens of reasons a signature mismatch may occur, even when the individual signing is in fact the voter. Disenfranchisement of approximately 5,000 voters based on signature mismatch is a substantial burden," Walker wrote in the order.It is not yet clear exactly how this ruling impacts the timetable to meet Thursday's 3 p.m. recount deadline, or whether there are enough ballots in question to potentially change the outcome of race.The ruling is narrower than the wider relief that Democrats were seeking -- to invalidate the signature-match requirement entirely. Florida law requires signatures on vote-by-mail and provisional ballots match the signatures on file for each voter. Attorneys for Nelson's re-election campaign argued that the signature-match rules violate the US Constitution and called for the judge to invalidate the law. Lawyers representing the state of Florida and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, along with others, argued that the law was valid and constitutional.The number of ballots in question is less than the margin of votes separating the closest race undergoing a recount. Scott led Nelson in the unofficial, pre-recount tally by more than 12,500 votes.The gubernatorial contest between Republican former Rep. Ron DeSantis and Democratic Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum is also being recounted, but the margin is wider -- nearly 34,000 votes. Florida Democrats are aware that margin will probably not be overcome in a recount. Still, Gillum withdrew his election night concession over the weekend with a message that every vote should be counted.The-CNN-Wire 2327

A Donald Trump foreign policy adviser pushed government agencies to review materials from the dark web in the summer of 2016 that he thought were Hillary Clinton's deleted emails, multiple sources with direct knowledge tell CNN.Joseph Schmitz approached the FBI and other government agencies about material a client of his had discovered that Schmitz believed might have been Clinton's missing 30,000 emails from her private e-mail server, sources say. The material was never verified, and sources say they ultimately believed it was fake.His push is the latest example of Trump advisers who were mixed up in efforts to find dirt on Clinton during the presidential campaign. Schmitz was one of the first people Trump named to his campaign's national security and foreign policy team. The team, showcased in a March 2016 photo, was thrown together early in Trump's successful run as he faced mounting pressure to prove his ability to pull in high-level advisers who could help prepare him for the White House.Another adviser pictured in the photo, Trump's foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, was told by a Kremlin-connected professor that the Russian government had damaging material on Clinton. Six weeks later, Donald Trump Jr. got a message from a business associate offering similar information, leading to the Trump Tower meeting that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort attended.Fired chief strategist Steve Bannon told the House Intelligence Committee in February that members of the Trump campaign "kept getting approached" by outsiders suggesting ways to get Clinton's emails, according to a source familiar with his testimony.Schmitz's connection to the multi-faceted effort to expose damaging information about Clinton has not been previously reported. His status as a former Pentagon inspector general afforded him access to the agencies and a sophisticated understanding of the government bureaucracy. He was relentless, sources say, and truly believed his client had found important, sensitive material. He did not hesitate in his pursuit even though the material on the dark web -- a part of the Internet not easily accessible or traceable -- was questionable and many experts already believed the Russians had stolen Clinton's emails.Schmitz met with officials at the FBI, the State Department and the Intelligence Community Inspector General -- the watchdog tasked with investigating Clinton's alleged mishandling of classified information. He claimed a source he called "PATRIOT," an unidentified contractor he was representing, had discovered what he believed was likely material stolen from Clinton that could contain classified information. Both the client and Schmitz were afraid that going through the material without permission could jeopardize their security clearances, though there is no indication their actions were illegal.While officials at the State Department and Inspector General briefly interviewed Schmitz, they declined to review or accept the information, according to sources familiar with the process. The FBI interviewed him as a part of its ongoing criminal investigation into Clinton's emails, sources said. It is not clear whether special counsel Robert Mueller is pursuing information about Schmitz's efforts.Schmitz then took a memo outlining his claims and concerns to the House Intelligence Committee. One cybersecurity expert outside the government who also saw the material on the dark web said the emails appeared to be fake, based on his review and the forum where they were posted."I'm pretty sure they were posted on the (dark web) equivalent of Reddit," the source said.CNN made multiple attempts to seek a response from Schmitz, including approaching him in person Friday. He declined to comment for the story.A former campaign official told CNN in a text, "The campaign doesn't comment on matters of interest to the Special Counsel or the Congressional committees." A source connected to the campaign's foreign policy team said he had no knowledge of Schmitz's efforts.The FBI declined to comment on questions about interviews with Schmitz, as did special counsel Robert Mueller's spokesperson Peter Carr about whether Mueller had interviewed Schmitz or might in the future. The Intelligence Community Inspector General, State Department and House Intelligence Committee also declined to comment.Meanwhile, Schmitz and his associates may still be a part of Trump's orbit.One of Schmitz's colleagues at his small law firm, Dennis Dean Kirk, was tapped by Trump in March to lead the federal workers' appeal committee, the Merit Systems Protection Board.  4669

来源：资阳报