進(jìn)入世界頂尖大學(xué)讀書(shū)，是不少人的夢(mèng)想，不過(guò)考核的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)可不簡(jiǎn)單。除了學(xué)習(xí)成績(jī)、社團(tuán)活動(dòng)、體育素質(zhì)、性格特質(zhì)……學(xué)生的種族居然也是一道門(mén)檻？此前，非營(yíng)利組織“學(xué)生公平錄取”（SFFA）就起訴美國(guó)常青藤名校哈佛大學(xué)，控告其非法歧視亞裔美籍申請(qǐng)人。

6月15日，“學(xué)生公平錄取”組織向法庭提交了一份報(bào)告，為證明哈佛歧視亞裔申請(qǐng)人提供了新證據(jù)。這份報(bào)告分析對(duì)照了2010-2015年間哈佛大學(xué)的申請(qǐng)和錄取材料，其中包括16萬(wàn)名學(xué)生的數(shù)據(jù)。據(jù)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》報(bào)道：

Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to the analysis…

這份報(bào)告顯示，在“積極人格”、親善力、勇氣、善良和“廣受尊敬”等性格特質(zhì)上，哈佛給亞裔美籍申請(qǐng)人打出的評(píng)分一直低于其他族裔申請(qǐng)人。

Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, according to the analysis commissioned by SFFA. But the students’ personal ratings significantly dragged down their chances of being admitted, the analysis found.

“學(xué)生公平錄取”組織委托進(jìn)行的這項(xiàng)分析顯示，在測(cè)驗(yàn)得分、成績(jī)、課外活動(dòng)這些錄取指標(biāo)上，亞裔美國(guó)學(xué)生的得分比其他種族或族裔的申請(qǐng)人都高。但分析也發(fā)現(xiàn)，亞裔學(xué)生的性格評(píng)分顯著拉低了他們的錄取幾率。

The court documents, filed in federal court in Boston, also showed that Harvard conducted an internal investigation into its admissions policies in 2013 and found a bias against Asian-American applicants. But Harvard never made the findings public or acted on them.

提交給波士頓聯(lián)邦法院的這些法庭文件還顯示，哈佛大學(xué)在2013年對(duì)其招生政策進(jìn)行過(guò)內(nèi)部調(diào)查，也發(fā)現(xiàn)了對(duì)亞裔美籍申請(qǐng)人存有偏見(jiàn)。但哈佛從未公布調(diào)查結(jié)果，也并未對(duì)此采取行動(dòng)。

Harvard, one of the most sought-after and selective universities in the country, admitted only 4.6 percent of its applicants this year. That has led to intense interest in the university’s closely guarded admissions process. Harvard had fought furiously over the last few months to keep secret the documents that were unsealed Friday.

哈佛大學(xué)是美國(guó)最熱門(mén)也最難申請(qǐng)的大學(xué)之一，今年的錄取率僅為4.6％。這使人們對(duì)哈佛嚴(yán)格保密的錄取過(guò)程充滿好奇。為避免公布15日披露的這些材料，哈佛在此前數(shù)月進(jìn)行了激烈的抗?fàn)帯?/p>

The documents came out as part of a lawsuit charging Harvard with systematically discriminating against Asian-Americans, in violation of civil rights law. The suit says that Harvard imposes what is in effect a soft quota of “racial balancing.” This keeps the numbers of Asian-Americans artificially low, while advancing less qualified white, black and Hispanic applicants, the plaintiffs contend.

此次訴訟指控哈佛大學(xué)在制度上歧視亞裔美國(guó)人，違反了民權(quán)法。訴訟稱哈佛事實(shí)上實(shí)施了“種族平衡”的軟配額。原告指出，這個(gè)制度人為地壓縮亞裔學(xué)生人數(shù)，使資質(zhì)更遜色的白人、黑人和西語(yǔ)裔申請(qǐng)人得到錄取機(jī)會(huì)。

Harvard and the group suing it have presented sharply divergent views of what constitutes a fair admissions process.

對(duì)于什么是公平的錄取過(guò)程，哈佛大學(xué)和提起訴訟的組織表達(dá)了截然不同的觀點(diǎn)。

“It turns out that the suspicions of Asian-American alumni, students and applicants were right all along,” the group, Students for Fair Admissions, said in a court document laying out the analysis. “Harvard today engages in the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s.”

“學(xué)生公平錄取”組織在列出上述分析報(bào)告的一份法庭文件中說(shuō)：“亞裔校友、在校生和申請(qǐng)人的懷疑原來(lái)一直都是對(duì)的，哈佛大學(xué)今日持有的歧視與成見(jiàn)，與它在20世紀(jì)二三十年代給猶太申請(qǐng)人設(shè)定限額并為之自辯時(shí)如出一轍?！?/p>

哈佛大學(xué)如何回應(yīng)？

Harvard vigorously disagreed on Friday, saying that its own expert analysis showed no discrimination and that seeking diversity is a valuable part of student selection. The university lashed out at the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, Edward Blum, accusing him of using Harvard to replay a previous challenge to affirmative action in college admissions, Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin. In its 2016 decision in that case, the Supreme Court ruled that race could be used as one of many factors in admissions.

哈佛大學(xué)15日表示強(qiáng)烈反對(duì)，聲稱校方專家的分析顯示并無(wú)歧視，而追求多元化是學(xué)生錄取的重要一環(huán)。哈佛抨擊了“學(xué)生公平錄取”組織創(chuàng)始人愛(ài)德華?布魯姆，指責(zé)他利用哈佛再次非難大學(xué)錄取工作中的“積極平權(quán)措施”，上一次是費(fèi)舍爾起訴德克薩斯大學(xué)奧斯汀分校。2016年最高法院對(duì)后者做出裁決，認(rèn)定種族可以是學(xué)生錄取過(guò)程中的諸多考慮因素之一。

“Thorough and comprehensive analysis of the data and evidence makes clear that Harvard College does not discriminate against applicants from any group, including Asian-Americans, whose rate of admission has grown 29 percent over the last decade,” Harvard said in a statement. “Mr. Blum and his organization’s incomplete and misleading data analysis paint a dangerously inaccurate picture of Harvard College’s whole-person admissions process by omitting critical data and information factors.”

哈佛大學(xué)在一份聲明中說(shuō)：“全面透徹地分析數(shù)據(jù)和證據(jù)，就能清楚地看到哈佛大學(xué)并不歧視任何群體的申請(qǐng)人，包括亞裔美國(guó)人，該群體的錄取比例在過(guò)去十年中已經(jīng)增長(zhǎng)了29％，” “布魯姆先生和他的組織片面地、誤導(dǎo)性地分析數(shù)據(jù)，忽略了關(guān)鍵數(shù)據(jù)和背景信息，對(duì)哈佛大學(xué)全面評(píng)估每個(gè)申請(qǐng)人的錄取過(guò)程做出了嚴(yán)重失實(shí)的描繪?！?/p>

In court papers, Harvard said that a statistical analysis could not capture the many intangible factors that go into Harvard admissions. Harvard said that the plaintiffs’ expert, Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke University economist, had mined the data to his advantage by taking out applicants who were favored because they were legacies, athletes, the children of staff and the like, including Asian-Americans. In response, the plaintiffs said their expert had factored out these applicants because he wanted to look at the pure effect of race on admissions, unclouded by other factors.

在法庭文件中，哈佛大學(xué)稱，統(tǒng)計(jì)分析看不到哈佛錄取工作中涉及的許多無(wú)形因素。哈佛聲稱原告方專家、杜克大學(xué)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家彼得?阿奇迪亞科諾為有利的結(jié)論歪曲數(shù)據(jù)，篩掉了因校友子女、運(yùn)動(dòng)員、教工子弟等身份而受惠的申請(qǐng)人，這其中也有亞裔美國(guó)人。原告方對(duì)此辯稱，專家剔除這些申請(qǐng)人是希望排除其他影響因素，單純著眼于種族對(duì)學(xué)生錄取的影響。

Both sides filed papers Friday asking for summary judgment, an immediate ruling in their favor. If the judge denies those requests, as is likely, a trial has been scheduled for October. If it goes on to the Supreme Court, it could upend decades of affirmative action policies at colleges and universities across the country.

訴訟雙方在15日都提交了文件，要求法庭立即做出有利己方的判決。法官很可能拒絕他們的請(qǐng)求，如果拒絕，案件將在10月進(jìn)行庭審。如果案件訴至最高法院，可能會(huì)推翻全美各地的大學(xué)實(shí)行了幾十年的“積極平權(quán)措施”政策。

Harvard is not the only Ivy League school facing pressure to admit more Asian-American students. Princeton and Cornell and others also have high numbers of Asian-American applicants. Yet their share of Asian-Americans students is comparable with Harvard’s.

除了哈佛之外，其他常春藤盟校也面臨著招收更多亞裔美國(guó)學(xué)生的壓力。普林斯頓、康奈爾等校都有大量亞裔申請(qǐng)人。而這些大學(xué)的亞裔學(xué)生比例與哈佛相當(dāng)。

The plaintiffs’ analysis was based on data extracted from the records of more than 160,000 applicants who applied for admission over six cycles from 2000 to 2015.

原告報(bào)告中的數(shù)據(jù)取自2000年至2015年間六個(gè)招生周期中超過(guò)16萬(wàn)名申請(qǐng)人的檔案。

They compare Harvard’s treatment of Asian-Americans with its well-documented campaign to reduce the growing number of Jews being admitted to Harvard in the 1920s. Until then, applicants had been admitted on academic merit. To avoid adopting a blatant quota system, Harvard introduced subjective criteria like character, personality and promise. The plaintiffs call this the “original sin of holistic admissions.”

哈佛大學(xué)在20世紀(jì)20年代為控制越來(lái)越多的猶太學(xué)生人數(shù)所采取的措施得到了詳盡記載，原告方把哈佛對(duì)待亞裔的措施與之進(jìn)行了比較。在那之前，錄取只依據(jù)申請(qǐng)人的學(xué)業(yè)能力。為了不讓配額制太明顯，哈佛采用了性格、氣質(zhì)、前途等主觀性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。原告方稱之為“全面入學(xué)評(píng)估的原罪”。

They argue that the same character-based system is being used now to hold the proportion of Asian-Americans at Harvard to roughly 20 percent year after year, except for minor increases, they say, spurred by litigation.

原告方認(rèn)為哈佛現(xiàn)在用同樣的基于性格的錄取評(píng)估制度，年復(fù)一年地把亞裔學(xué)生比例控制在20%左右，幾次微小的增長(zhǎng)都由訴訟導(dǎo)致。

White applicants would be most hurt if Asian-American admissions rose, the plaintiffs said.

原告方認(rèn)為錄取更多亞裔對(duì)白人申請(qǐng)者最為不利。

On summary sheets, Asian-American applicants were much more likely than other races to be described as “standard strong,” meaning lacking special qualities that would warrant admission, even though they were more academically qualified, the plaintiffs said. They were 25 percent more likely than white applicants to receive that rating. They were also described as “busy and bright” in their admissions files, the plaintiffs said.

原告方稱，在評(píng)估匯總表上亞裔比其他種族的申請(qǐng)人有更大可能得到“一般優(yōu)秀”的評(píng)價(jià)，也就是說(shuō)還缺乏確保錄取的特長(zhǎng)，哪怕他們學(xué)業(yè)成績(jī)更優(yōu)。亞裔獲得這一評(píng)價(jià)的幾率比白人申請(qǐng)者高出25%。原告方表示，亞裔在錄取評(píng)估文件里還被描述為“忙碌而聰敏”。

One summary sheet comment said the Asian-American applicant would “need to fight it out with many similar” applicants. The plaintiffs’ papers appeared to offer other examples of grudging or derogatory descriptions of Asian applications, but they had been redacted.

匯總表里的一條評(píng)論說(shuō)，亞裔申請(qǐng)人“需要在與眾多相似申請(qǐng)人的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中脫穎而出”。原告方提交的文件中，似乎還有更多對(duì)亞裔申請(qǐng)人不情不愿或有意貶損的描述，但已作涂黑處理。

In its admissions process, Harvard scores applicants in five categories — “academic,” “extracurricular,” “athletic,” “personal” and “overall.” They are ranked from 1 to 6, with 1 being the best.

錄取過(guò)程中哈佛大學(xué)從“學(xué)業(yè)”、“課外”、“運(yùn)動(dòng)”、“個(gè)性”和“綜合”五方面給申請(qǐng)人打分。評(píng)級(jí)從1到6，1級(jí)是最好的。

Whites get higher personal ratings than Asian-Americans, with 21.3 percent of white applicants getting a 1 or 2 compared to 17.6 percent of Asian-Americans, according to the plaintiffs’ analysis.

據(jù)原告方的分析報(bào)告，白人申請(qǐng)者在個(gè)性上得到的評(píng)價(jià)高于亞裔，21.3%的白人得到1級(jí)或2級(jí)，而亞裔得到這兩個(gè)評(píng)級(jí)的只有17.6%。

Alumni interviewers give Asian-Americans personal ratings comparable to those of whites. But the admissions office gives them the worst scores of any racial group, often without even meeting them, according to Professor Arcidiacono.

哈佛校友面試官給亞裔和白人的個(gè)性評(píng)分不相上下。但阿奇迪亞科諾教授說(shuō)，招生辦公室常常連亞裔申請(qǐng)人的面都沒(méi)見(jiàn)，就給出了所有種族里最差的評(píng)分。

Harvard said that while admissions officers may not meet the applicants, they can judge their personal qualities based on factors like personal essays and letters of recommendation.

哈佛大學(xué)則表示，雖然招生官員有可能并不面見(jiàn)申請(qǐng)人，但他們從申請(qǐng)人的申請(qǐng)陳述以及推薦信等材料也能判斷其個(gè)性特質(zhì)。

Harvard said it was implausible that Harvard’s 40-member admissions committee, some of whom were Asian-Americans, would conclude that Asian-American applicants were less personable than other races.

校方稱，哈佛招生委員會(huì)有40名成員，其中一些成員為亞裔，他們不可能下結(jié)論說(shuō)亞裔不如他族裔的學(xué)生有個(gè)人魅力。

University officials did concede that its 2013 internal review found that if Harvard considered only academic achievement, the Asian-American share of the class would rise to 43 percent from the actual 19 percent. After accounting for Harvard’s preference for recruited athletes and legacy applicants, the proportion of whites went up, while the share of Asian-Americans fell to 31 percent. Accounting for extracurricular and personal ratings, the share of whites rose again, and Asian-Americans fell to 26 percent.

哈佛大學(xué)的官員承認(rèn)，校方2013年的內(nèi)部調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，如果錄取學(xué)生只看學(xué)業(yè)成績(jī)，亞裔學(xué)生在一屆學(xué)生中的比例將從現(xiàn)實(shí)中的19％上升到43％。將哈佛優(yōu)先錄取體育特長(zhǎng)生和校友子女的因素考慮在內(nèi)，則白人學(xué)生比例上升，亞裔比例下降到31％。再算上課外活動(dòng)及個(gè)性評(píng)分，白人的比例就進(jìn)一步上升，亞裔比例下降到26％。

What brought the Asian-American number down to roughly 18 percent, or about the actual share, was accounting for a category called “demographic,” the study found. This pushed up African-American and Hispanic numbers, while reducing whites and Asian-Americans. The plaintiffs said this meant there was a penalty for being Asian-American.

這項(xiàng)調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，把亞裔學(xué)生比例降到接近18%或者現(xiàn)有實(shí)際水平的，是算上了所謂“人口分布”的因素。這使非裔和西語(yǔ)裔學(xué)生比例提高，壓低了白人和亞裔比例。原告方指出，這就等于是對(duì)亞裔身份的一種懲罰。

“Further details (especially around the personal rating) may provide further insight,” Harvard’s internal report said.

哈佛大學(xué)的內(nèi)部報(bào)告說(shuō)：“更多細(xì)節(jié)（尤其是有關(guān)個(gè)性評(píng)估的）可能會(huì)帶來(lái)更深入的了解?！?/p>

But, the plaintiffs said in their motion Friday, there was no further insight, because, “Harvard killed the study and quietly buried the reports.”

但原告方在15日的動(dòng)議中說(shuō)，沒(méi)有更深入的了解，因?yàn)椤肮鸾K止了研究，悄悄掩藏了研究報(bào)告?！?/p>

Harvard said that the review was discounted because it was preliminary and incomplete.

哈佛則表示，沒(méi)有重視這份內(nèi)部報(bào)告是因?yàn)檎{(diào)查還比較初步，不夠完整。

At the end of the admissions process, the class of applicants is fine-tuned through a so-called “l(fā)op list,” which includes race. Almost the entire page in which the plaintiffs describe that fine-tuning has been blacked out. Mr. Blum, the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, said Friday that it was “disreputable” of Harvard to complain that information was being taken out of context while at the same time insisting on significant redactions of the evidence.

在錄取工作的最后，申請(qǐng)人的評(píng)分會(huì)通過(guò)所謂的“優(yōu)先權(quán)喪失清單”進(jìn)行微調(diào)，過(guò)程中也考慮了種族因素。原告方藉以描述這一微調(diào)過(guò)程的文件幾乎整頁(yè)都被涂黑了?！皩W(xué)生公平錄取”組織創(chuàng)始人布魯姆在15日表示，哈佛大學(xué)一面堅(jiān)持進(jìn)行大面積的證據(jù)涂黑，一面又抱怨別人的分析是斷章取義，這樣的做法“并不光彩”。

Harvard’s class of 2021 is 14.6 percent African-American, 22.2 percent Asian-American, 11.6 percent Hispanic and 2.5 percent Native-American or Pacific Islander, according to Harvard’s website.

哈佛大學(xué)網(wǎng)站顯示，哈佛的2021屆學(xué)生中14.6%是非裔，22.2%是亞裔，11.6%是西語(yǔ)裔，2.5%是美洲原住民及太平洋島民。

來(lái)源：紐約時(shí)報(bào)，中國(guó)僑網(wǎng)

審校：yaning，董靜