单选题 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 non-profitable 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 company that owns nine television stations.
Among the steps the form 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.

【正确答案】 A

【答案解析】细节题。文章第一段就指出美国法院在大学和其他地方限制affirmative-action(反歧视行动或平权措施)。他们认为racial preference是违反宪法的。后面又进一步指出，法院的这种做法对于很多大学来说意味着学生今后只能依靠他们自己的实力才能被录取，而不是取决于他们的肤色或种族。故选A， minorities将不再享有以前的优惠政策。