亞裔美國(guó)人對(duì)陣哈佛案情全解讀

BOSTON — Harvard University’s admissions practices are on trial in Federal District Court in Boston, in a lawsuit that could have a broad impact on the way colleges choose their incoming classes.

波士頓——哈佛大學(xué)錄取新生的做法正受到波士頓聯(lián)邦地方法院的審理，這起訴訟可能會(huì)對(duì)大學(xué)挑選入學(xué)新生的方式產(chǎn)生廣泛影響。

The trial began on Monday with opening statements by lawyers for the plaintiffs, who accuse Harvard of effectively setting a restrictive quota for the number of Asian-American students it accepts, and for the university, which denies that its admissions practices are discriminatory. Supporters of the two sides held dueling rallies in Boston and on the Harvard campus in Cambridge, Mass., on the eve of the trial.

審理于周一開始，原告和被告的律師分別做了開庭陳述，原告指控哈佛事實(shí)上對(duì)其錄取的亞裔美國(guó)學(xué)生數(shù)量設(shè)定了限制性配額，而大學(xué)則否認(rèn)其招生做法有歧視性。在開庭審理的前夕，雙方的支持者在波士頓、以及在馬薩諸塞州坎布里奇市哈佛的校園里舉行了針鋒相對(duì)的集會(huì)。

The case is a departure from past challenges to race-conscious admissions, because it argues that a minority group has been unfairly penalized in favor both of whites and of other minority groups. Asian-Americans are divided on the case, with some saying they are being unfairly used as a wedge in a bid to abolish affirmative action.

此案背離了過去挑戰(zhàn)有意識(shí)地考慮種族的錄取政策的做法，因?yàn)樵嬲J(rèn)為，為了錄取更多的白人和其他少數(shù)族裔，一個(gè)少數(shù)族裔受到了不公正的對(duì)待。亞裔美國(guó)人在這個(gè)案件上產(chǎn)生了分裂，有些人稱，在廢除平權(quán)法案的努力中，他們被不公平地用做挑起事端者。

The court may rule broadly and make new law on the issue, or it may hand down a narrow decision that affects only Harvard. At a minimum, legal experts say, the case will expose the sometimes arcane admissions practices of one of the most selective institutions in the world. William Fitzsimmons, Harvard’s longtime dean of admissions, is expected to be among the first witnesses to testify.

法院可能會(huì)做出廣泛的裁決、并在這個(gè)問題上制定新法律，也可能做出只影響哈佛的小范圍裁決。法律專家說，至少此案將把世界上最嚴(yán)格挑選學(xué)生的機(jī)構(gòu)之一的有時(shí)神秘的錄取方法顯露于世。預(yù)計(jì)哈佛大學(xué)長(zhǎng)期負(fù)責(zé)招生的院長(zhǎng)威廉·菲茨西蒙斯(William Fitzsimmons)將作為第一批證人出庭作證。

In opening arguments Monday, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Adam Mortara, asserted that the lawsuit was not against campus diversity.

在周一的開庭陳述中，原告律師亞當(dāng)·莫塔拉(Adam Mortara)聲稱，本次訴訟不是反對(duì)校園的多元化。

“The future of affirmative action in college admissions is not on trial,” Mr. Mortara said. “This trial is about what Harvard has done and is doing to Asian-American applicants, and how far Harvard has gone in its zeal to use race in the admissions process.”

“大學(xué)招生中的平權(quán)法案的未來不是受審的對(duì)象，”莫塔拉說。“這次審理是關(guān)于哈佛對(duì)亞裔美國(guó)申請(qǐng)人已經(jīng)做過的和正在做的事情，以及哈佛在招生過程中使用種族的熱情是否過分的問題。”

Harvard’s lawyer, Bill Lee, finished his opening arguments in defense of the university on a personal note. He recalled the first time he had appeared in a federal courtroom, more than 40 years ago. Everyone in the room was male, he said, and they were all white except for him, an Asian-American. “This, of all times, is not a time to go back,” Mr. Lee said.

哈佛大學(xué)的律師比爾·李(Bill Lee)以一段個(gè)人經(jīng)歷結(jié)束了他的開庭陳述。他回憶起40多年前他首次在一個(gè)聯(lián)邦法庭上出庭的情景。他說，房間里的每個(gè)人都是男性，而且除了他都是白人，他是亞裔美國(guó)人。“現(xiàn)在，無論何時(shí)，都不是倒退的時(shí)候，”李說。

Here are the basic facts of the case and a look at what’s at stake.

下面是本案的基本事實(shí)，以及所涉及的利害關(guān)系。

What’s this case about?

這個(gè)案子是關(guān)于什么的?

The lawsuit accuses Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American applicants.

原告在訴訟中指控哈佛大學(xué)歧視亞裔美國(guó)申請(qǐng)人。

The plaintiffs say that the university holds Asian-Americans to a higher standard than applicants of other races and resorts to racial balancing to shape its incoming classes, in violation of civil rights law. It does this, the plaintiffs say, by manipulating aspects of its admissions process, especially nonacademic gauges — including a “personal rating” — that are hard to quantify.

原告稱，哈佛大學(xué)對(duì)亞裔美國(guó)人設(shè)定了高于其他族裔的錄取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，并訴諸于種族平衡的做法來構(gòu)成其每屆新生，違反了民權(quán)法。原告說，哈佛大學(xué)的做法是通過操縱其錄取過程的某些方面，尤其是非學(xué)術(shù)的判斷——包括“個(gè)性評(píng)分”這種難以量化的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。

Harvard says it does not discriminate against applicants of any race. It has staunchly defended its “holistic” admissions policy, which considers race as one factor among many and has been held up as a model by the Supreme Court. The university makes no secret of its pursuit of a diverse class each year, but denies using racial quotas to achieve it.

哈佛大學(xué)說，哈佛不歧視任何族裔的申請(qǐng)人。哈佛一直在堅(jiān)定地維護(hù)自己的“全面評(píng)估”招生政策，這種政策將族裔視為眾多因素之一，并已經(jīng)被最高法院視為一種典范。哈佛大學(xué)毫不掩飾其尋求每年錄取多元化的學(xué)生，但否認(rèn)使用種族配額來實(shí)現(xiàn)這一點(diǎn)。

But what is it really about?

但這個(gè)案子究竟是關(guān)于什么的?

The case is widely seen as a battle over the future of affirmative action. Race’s role in admissions is being debated at every level in education, from colleges to elite high schools to gifted elementary programs, and all of them will be watching intently for a broad ruling.

這個(gè)案子被普遍視為是圍繞平權(quán)法案的未來的一次斗爭(zhēng)。有關(guān)種族在錄取中的作用的辯論正在各個(gè)層次的教育機(jī)構(gòu)中展開，從大學(xué)、到精英高中、到有天賦的小學(xué)項(xiàng)目，這些機(jī)構(gòu)都將專注地觀察等待一個(gè)廣泛的裁決。

The plaintiffs are trying to eliminate the use of race in the admissions process, and accuse Harvard of not making a good-faith effort to consider race-neutral alternative policies to achieve its goals. Harvard says that it has, and that eliminating race as a factor would cause an unacceptable decline in diversity, which it values as part of its educational mission.

原告正在試圖消除在錄取過程中使用種族的做法，并指責(zé)哈佛在考慮使用無種族傾向性的替代政策來實(shí)現(xiàn)自己的目標(biāo)上沒有做出真誠(chéng)的努力。哈佛說已經(jīng)做了真誠(chéng)的努力，并表示，消除種族這個(gè)因素將導(dǎo)致不可接受的多元化降低，哈佛把多元化視為其教育使命的一部分。

The suit is tailor-made to go to the Supreme Court, and if it does, it could change the face of admissions.

這個(gè)案子非常適合上最高法院，如果真上了，它將改變錄取的特征。

Who are the main parties?

誰(shuí)是主要的各方?

The plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions, are a group of Asian-American students who were rejected by Harvard. They are led by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who opposes consideration of race in all aspects of public life. Mr. Blum, 65, was behind two previous landmark cases to reach the Supreme Court: one on the issue of race in admissions at the University of Texas, which he lost; and one contesting key parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which he won.

原告“大學(xué)生公平錄取”組織(Students for Fair Admissions)是一群被哈佛大學(xué)拒之門外的亞裔學(xué)生。他們由保守派活躍分子愛德華·布魯姆(Edward Blum)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，布魯姆反對(duì)在公共生活的各個(gè)方面考慮種族因素。現(xiàn)年65歲的布魯姆是以前兩起上了最高法院的具有里程碑意義的案子的幕后推手：一起是關(guān)于德克薩斯大學(xué)錄取學(xué)生中使用種族的，這起他輸了;另一起對(duì)1965年的投票權(quán)法案的關(guān)鍵部分提出了異議，這起他贏了。

The judge is Allison D. Burroughs, who was nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed to the federal bench in 2014. Judge Burroughs was one of several federal judges who delayed or blocked President Trump’s first travel ban, issued in January 2017.

本案的法官是阿利森·D·伯勒斯(Allison D. Burroughs)，她是在2014年由巴拉克·奧巴馬總統(tǒng)提名為聯(lián)邦法官的，并得到了確認(rèn)。伯勒斯是延遲或阻止特朗普總統(tǒng)于2017年1月簽署的第一個(gè)旅行禁令的幾位聯(lián)邦法官之一。

The defendant is Harvard, but other elite universities, including the rest of the Ivy League schools, have closed ranks in support, filing a joint brief saying that a ruling against Harvard would hurt diversity efforts across academia.

被告是哈佛大學(xué)，但其他精英大學(xué)，包括其余的常春藤盟校已經(jīng)聯(lián)合起來對(duì)哈佛大學(xué)表示支持，他們提交了一份聯(lián)合辯護(hù)狀，稱對(duì)哈佛大學(xué)的不利裁決將損害整個(gè)學(xué)術(shù)界的多元化努力。

What evidence will be presented?

會(huì)提供什么證據(jù)?

The plaintiffs have cited preliminary drafts of reports that Harvard itself conducted on its admissions, which circulated within the university in 2013. The reports, by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, found that being Asian-American was negatively associated with being admitted. Harvard says the reports are incomplete.

原告已經(jīng)舉出的證據(jù)包括，哈佛自己對(duì)錄取情況匯報(bào)的報(bào)告初稿，這份文件曾于2013年在校內(nèi)流傳過。報(bào)告由哈佛大學(xué)機(jī)構(gòu)研究辦公室撰寫，報(bào)告發(fā)現(xiàn)，亞裔美國(guó)人的身份與被錄取有負(fù)關(guān)聯(lián)。哈佛說，這份報(bào)告并不完整。

The plaintiffs indicated on Monday that they consider the 2013 reports to be among their strongest evidence. “Before there was a website called ‘Harvard Not Fair,’ before Harvard knew anything about this case, Harvard’s own internal researchers told Harvard, told Dean Fitzgerald, that having a higher personal rating was the most important thing to get in,” Mr. Mortara said in opening arguments. “They also told them that there was a big tip for African-Americans,” Mr. Mortara said, using a common term for an admissions preference or advantage.

原告在周一暗示，他們認(rèn)為這份2013年的報(bào)告是他們掌握的是最強(qiáng)有力的證據(jù)之一。“早在‘哈佛不公平’(Harvard Not Fair)網(wǎng)站出現(xiàn)之前，早在哈佛知道這個(gè)案子的任何事情之前，哈佛自己內(nèi)部的研究人員就對(duì)哈佛、對(duì)菲茨西蒙斯院長(zhǎng)說，有更高的個(gè)性評(píng)分對(duì)被錄取來說是最重要的，”莫塔拉在開庭陳述中說。“研究人員還告訴他們，對(duì)非洲裔美國(guó)人有一個(gè)大的額外考慮。”莫塔拉說，他用了描述錄取偏好或優(yōu)勢(shì)的一個(gè)常用術(shù)語(yǔ)。

Mr. Lee argued on Harvard’s behalf that the plaintiffs had misinterpreted the internal report, whose real purpose was to assess admissions of low-income students.

李為哈佛進(jìn)行辯護(hù)時(shí)說，原告誤解了這份內(nèi)部報(bào)告，報(bào)告的真正目的是評(píng)估低收入學(xué)生群體的錄取情況。

Both sides will rely on expert analysis. The plaintiffs’ report, written by Dr. Peter Arcidiacono, found, among other things, that the “personal ratings” given to Asian-American applicants tended to significantly drag down their chances of being admitted.

雙方都將依靠專家分析。原告的分析報(bào)告由彼得·阿西迪亞科諾博士(Dr. Peter Arcidiacono)撰寫，報(bào)告發(fā)現(xiàn)，與其他因素相比，對(duì)亞裔美國(guó)申請(qǐng)人作出的“個(gè)性評(píng)分”往往會(huì)顯著地拉低他們被錄取的機(jī)會(huì)。

Harvard signaled on Monday that it will argue that the plaintiffs are glossing over aspects of the admissions data that undermine their case, including figures that show no discrimination against some categories of Asian-Americans.

哈佛在周一暗示，它將做的辯護(hù)包括，原告把錄取數(shù)據(jù)的某些方面塘塞過去的做法，削弱了他們的案子，比如一些數(shù)據(jù)顯示，對(duì)某幾類亞裔美國(guó)人不存在歧視。

Harvard’s lawyer, Mr. Lee, said that other factors, including an applicant’s intended major and parents’ occupation, weigh more heavily than race in determining which students are admitted, and that once those factors are accounted for, the statistical support for the plaintiffs’ claim of discrimination disappears.

哈佛的律師李說，包括申請(qǐng)人的意向?qū)I(yè)以及父母的職業(yè)在內(nèi)的其他因素，在決定學(xué)生是否被錄取上，比種族因素起更重要的作用。一旦把這些因素考慮進(jìn)來，對(duì)原告宣稱的歧視的統(tǒng)計(jì)支持就會(huì)消失。

Much of the courtroom debate is expected to focus on how the two experts conducted their analyses, and what they chose to include and omit.

法庭的大部分辯論預(yù)期將集中在雙方的專家如何做他們的分析，以及他們?cè)诜治鲋羞x擇把什么包括進(jìn)來、把什么略去。

How do Asian-Americans feel about the case?

亞裔美國(guó)人對(duì)這起案件怎么看?

Surveys show that by and large, Asian-Americans support affirmative action. Many have fiercely defended Harvard in the lawsuit, and say that the plaintiffs are using them against other minorities.

調(diào)查顯示，總體來說，亞裔美國(guó)人支持平權(quán)法案。有許多人在此案中極力為哈佛辯護(hù)，稱原告在利用他們打擊其他少數(shù)族裔。

But the case has also been deeply painful for some, dredging up longstanding fears of being reduced to crude stereotypes. It has sowed ambivalence and division among Asian ethnic groups.

但這個(gè)案子也給一些人帶來了深深的痛苦，此案勾起了他們對(duì)被簡(jiǎn)化為粗略的刻板印象的長(zhǎng)期擔(dān)憂。在亞裔族群中，此案已經(jīng)埋下了矛盾和分裂的種子。

Increasingly vocal groups of Chinese-Americans have been galvanized by the fight over race-based school admissions. Dozens of Chinese-Americans filed their own discrimination complaint with the Justice Department against Harvard. The department has opened investigations at Harvard and at Yale on the issue, and has backed the plaintiffs in the Harvard suit.

越來越敢發(fā)聲的華裔群體被這場(chǎng)基于種族的入學(xué)錄取引發(fā)的斗爭(zhēng)激勵(lì)起來。幾十個(gè)華裔美國(guó)人向司法部提交了他們自己受哈佛歧視的投訴。司法部已經(jīng)就此對(duì)哈佛和耶魯展開調(diào)查，并且在這起哈佛案中支持了原告。

What’s the history behind the case?

此案背后有什么樣的歷史?

The lawsuit was first filed in 2014, but it has been decades in the making. Disputes over whether Harvard imposes quotas on Asian-Americans date back to at least the 1980s. The Education Department looked into the matter in 1988, but cleared Harvard of any foul play, a point Mr. Lee dwelled on in his opening.

雖然此訴訟案最初是在2014年提交到法院的，但已經(jīng)醞釀了幾十年。關(guān)于哈佛是否對(duì)亞裔美國(guó)人采取配額限制的爭(zhēng)論可以至少追溯到20世紀(jì)80年代。教育部在1988年曾對(duì)此展開過調(diào)查，并證明了哈佛沒有任何不當(dāng)行為，李在其開庭陳述中強(qiáng)調(diào)了這一點(diǎn)。

The debate roared back to life in 2012 after a conservative activist published a long essay about Harvard admissions called “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” which attracted mainstream news coverage. Mr. Lee derided that essay as “provocative,” and said that the university’s introspection about admissions was prompted instead by the research of Caroline Hoxby, an economist studying low-income students and college.

2012年，一名保守派活動(dòng)人士發(fā)表了一篇關(guān)于哈佛如何錄取學(xué)生的長(zhǎng)文，文章的題目是《美國(guó)英才領(lǐng)導(dǎo)體制的神話》(The Myth of American Meritocracy)，文章引起主流媒體的報(bào)道后，這場(chǎng)辯論又重新活躍起來。李嘲笑該文是“煽動(dòng)性的”，并說，哈佛對(duì)招生情況的內(nèi)部反思是卡洛琳·霍克斯比(Caroline Hoxby)的研究引起的，霍克斯比是研究低收入學(xué)生群體與大學(xué)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家。

The plaintiffs in the current lawsuit have tried to trace the issue back even farther, to Harvard’s history of restricting its admission of Jews starting in the 1920s.

這起訴訟的原告已試圖將這次涉及的問題扯回到更久遠(yuǎn)的時(shí)代，哈佛曾有過限制猶太學(xué)生錄取人數(shù)的歷史，是從20世紀(jì)20年代開始的。

“We must take as many as we can benefit,” the president of the university, A. Lawrence Lowell, wrote concerning Jewish applicants in a 1922 letter, “but if we take more, we shall not benefit them and shall ruin the college.”

“我們必須盡可能多地錄取對(duì)我們有利的人數(shù)，”哈佛大學(xué)校長(zhǎng)A·勞倫斯·洛厄爾(A. Lawrence Lowell)在1922年的一封信中提到猶太申請(qǐng)人時(shí)寫道，“但是，如果我們錄取更多人的話，我們將無法讓他們受益，并且將毀掉這所大學(xué)。”

Jewish enrollment at Harvard had been growing rapidly, and by 1925, Jews accounted for 27.1 percent of the freshman class, according to court documents, leading to threats from some alumni that they would stop giving. Mr. Lowell proposed a quota of 15 percent, but the plan met heated opposition. Then, in January 1926, Harvard revamped its admissions policy, in part by putting more emphasis on “character and fitness,” according to another unsealed document, as well as “racial characteristics.”

那時(shí)，哈佛的猶太學(xué)生人數(shù)一直在快速增長(zhǎng)，根據(jù)法庭文件，到1925年時(shí)，猶太學(xué)生已占當(dāng)屆新生的27.1%，導(dǎo)致一些校友威脅要停止捐款。洛厄爾提出了15%的配額限制，但這個(gè)提案遭到了強(qiáng)烈的反對(duì)。后來，哈佛在1926年1月修改了自己的錄取政策，據(jù)另一份解封的文件，這種修改在某種程度上更多地強(qiáng)調(diào)了“性格和體質(zhì)”，以及“種族特征”。

“Race is part of the record,” a student paper, The Gadfly, quoted the admissions chairman saying a few months after the change. “It is by no means the whole record and no man will be kept out on grounds of race.”

“種族是正式記錄的一部分”，一份學(xué)生報(bào)紙《牛虻》(The Gadfly)援引當(dāng)時(shí)的招生主管在修改政策幾個(gè)月后說的話寫道。“它絕不是全部的記錄，沒有人會(huì)因?yàn)榉N族而被拒之門外。”

Judge Burroughs has expressed skepticism about whether the history of discrimination against Jews at Harvard is relevant to the current case, but she agreed to allow limited testimony on the matter.

伯勒斯已對(duì)哈佛歧視猶太學(xué)生的歷史是否與本案有關(guān)表示懷疑，但她同意允許對(duì)這件事進(jìn)行有限的舉證。