(有许多资料,不断整理中. 这是初稿 Ver 1. 会在博格里更新)
起诉申诉经过简述:
1. 2014年: Edward Blum的组织Project on Fair Representation, 起诉 哈佛, UNC 歧视亚裔
2. 2015年5月: 有64 个组织组成的亚裔联盟向司法部和教育部的民权办公室提交了申诉, 指责哈佛歧视 (中文媒体和子坛讨论, 常把这个误称为"起诉", 其实是两回事)
1. 亚裔联盟行动之后. 最先发声的是亚裔 135个民权组织. 他们发表了一封联合公开信(附在后面),
反对亚裔联盟的立场. 除了重申支持 affirmative action 外, 还支持哈佛的Holistic admission. 下面的意见说出来他们的主要关心:
“Instead of asking Americans to come together to help address serious problems in our education system, these folks (注: 指亚裔联盟) are trying to divide communities. We are in this boat together and Asians won’t save our children’s future by pushing other communities overboard,” said Christopher Punongbayan, Executive Director at Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus.
2. 代表黑人墨裔等少数民族的组织 The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 对Ed Blum的右翼组织有很高的警惕性. 正在设法加入 Edward Blum 案, filed "motion to intervene". 他们声称, Ed Blum的起诉案的主要对象其实是这些少数民族, 如果起诉成功的话 ' the consequences for blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans would be “catastrophic,” ' 这个强烈反应, 正应了上面" pushing other communities overboard"
至于白人的份额, 读了'纯白'痛骂哈佛歧视: 'European Americans, who are about 68%"后即知他们的份额大幅缩水. 加上这次Ed Blum的诉讼不是针对他们, 右翼部分支持Blum. 也有不少对亚裔不利的言论.
--
亚裔重视教育, 努力为下一代争取教育资源, 这无可非议.
问题是在追求哈佛之类的稀有资源 扩大自己利益的过程中, 会动了谁的起司.
哈佛的名额, 被多方追逐. Blum和亚裔联盟的举动会促使其他族裔的大反弹. 为了避免Affirmative Action 没顶, 遭遇"catastrophy", 他们一定会联手, 奋力一搏.
稀有资源的争取成功与否, 不是亚裔一厢情愿的事情.
这次Ed Blum 的起诉, 其契机是由他主导的Fisher vs. Texas之案在高院遭遇失败, 高院再次肯定 Affirmative Action. 这促使他重新找一个案例, 继续挑战 AA.
亚裔的哈佛入取份额, 成了他手中的新长矛.
只是, 此大战刚出师, 黑人墨裔已经闻风而动, 很快地布局了.
哈佛经过多年多次应战, 也胸有成竹. 其次, 哈佛的 Holistic Admission是当年最高院作为入学标准的范例--种族不是入取的主因, 但为了达到校园有多元化而被容许考虑的一个因素.
这次亚裔的申诉, 与1988年 教育部民权办公室受理的案例性质类似:
--主要理由是亚裔进哈佛需有着比其他族裔高的 SAT;
--新的理由是: 亚裔份额比例没有比1992年高. 尽管人口比例增长了. 里面一定有猫腻, 有非法 quota
初步解读:
--SAT一说, 上一次的申诉报告民权办公室已经让哈佛过关. 白人除去运动员和有legacy, 亚裔并没有高于白人. 这一次依旧难以有影响, 尤其是自从那时, 白人的比例比那时下降了近10个百分点.
--亚裔份额一直不变之说并不客观, 这取决于你选90年代哪一年的数字来比.
90年代哈佛亚裔录取从15%到 20.3% 都有. 平均约17%. 亚裔联盟跟着Ron Unz, 挑一那十年里极大值来和这几年20%的比例来比较, 不具说服力.
要用事实上不断浮动但总体上升的比例, 去证明有固定quota, 很难圆其词.
另外, quota一说, 88年申诉时也提出. 90年结案时, 民权办公室的调查没有发现哈佛违法.
这次被Blum重提, 就像加州州大教授 Jennifer Lee所说:
But critics — many within the Asian-American community — have questioned the real motive behind these cases, charging that both may be using the alleged racial discrimination against Asian-Americans as a wedge issue to promote a much larger agenda: the dismantling of affirmative action.
“They are trying to confuse people,” University of California Irvine sociologist Jennifer Lee said of the language used in the Harvard complaint. “They don’t discuss affirmative action, but are very deliberate about using the term ‘quotas,’ because it tends to provoke controversy among Americans.”
4. 这次亚裔联盟重复过去的申诉(其实2006年, 2010年分别还有过两次. 后来上诉人撤案), 至今官方的反应有: two U.S. Civil Rights Commissioners on the US Commission on Civil Rights who are Asian American — Michael Yaki and Karen Narasaki — issued their own statement for a formal civil rights complaint against Harvard:
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONERS YAKI AND NARASAKI
While we have not reviewed the actual complaint against Harvard University, we hope that this is a sincerely raised issue and not a back door attack on affirmative action that attempts to pit Asian Americans against other minorities, as other efforts have been. Like a majority of Asian Americans, we stand together as long-time supporters of affirmative action. Affirmative action creates opportunities for students disadvantaged by race and circumstances, and a diverse student body ensures that the next generation of Americans is exposed to the variety of life experiences and backgrounds that will help them to build vibrant communities and successfully work in the global economy.
Neither of us believes that any racial or ethnic group should be subjected to quotas. Nor do we believe that test scores alone entitle anyone to admission at Harvard. Students are more than their test scores and grades. Well-constructed and properly implemented admissions programs further our principles of equal opportunity. While we understand that some programs may be imperfect, or even need substantial reform, we do not support any attempt to eliminate affirmative action programs at Harvard or any institution of higher learning.
We will closely review the complaint and the University’s response and closely monitor developments in this situation.
---
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has previously found the argument that racial disparities in admissions are de facto evidence of discriminatory quotas to be unpersuasive. No new evidence has thus far been presented by anti-affirmative action lobbyists since those findings
---
135组织的公开信:
As individuals and more than 135 organizations across the United States that serve and represent Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) communities, we believe that equal opportunity is a cherished principle in American society that must be protected. Our universities should reflect our diverse democracy and expand opportunities for those students who have overcome significant barriers. Rather than letting ourselves be divided, we must come together to ensure increased opportunities and success for all students.
Affirmative action does not constitute quotas
Unfortunately, there have been attempts by some to engage in divisive wedge politics by using misguided, misleading tactics to attack equal opportunity by calling for an end to race sensitive admissions policies at educational institutions such as Harvard University and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Opponents of affirmative action have wrongfully and disingenuously equated affirmative action with quotas.
The truth is that affirmative action does not constitute quotas.
Affirmative action does not exclude or limit the admission of students from any specific racial or ethnic background. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court long ago prohibited quotas in the higher education admissions process, including banning limits on the admission or enrollment of any racial or ethnic group.
To be clear, we oppose quotas, discrimination, and bias against any racial or ethnic group.
Affirmative action promotes equal opportunity for all
We support affirmative action which, as noted above, does not constitute quotas, discrimination, or bias against Asian Americans.
Currently, affirmative action at universities consists of race sensitive holistic admissions policies. These policies promote equal opportunity in a society where racism still exists and racial barriers continue to unfairly limit educational opportunities for students of color. For example, our schools are more segregated today than they were in the late 1960s. Students of color, particularly African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Southeast Asians, are much more likely to attend under-resourced K-12 schools. Implicit bias and stereotyping also further impact and harm the educational learning environments and opportunities of students of color. Universities should consider these factors when reviewing applications for admissions.
All students benefit from the racially and ethnically diverse learning environments fostered by race sensitive holistic admissions processes, including the benefits of increased cross-racial understanding, reduction of stereotyping and isolation of minority students, and training for a diverse workforce and society.
Affirmative action simply takes into account whether an applicant has overcome significant obstacles and institutional barriers, such as racial and ethnic discrimination
Affirmative action simply takes into account whether an applicant has overcome racial and ethnic adversity as one of several factors in a holistic review of an applicant’s qualifications, leadership, and potential. Holistic admissions processes also consider, for example, whether an applicant has endured poverty or is the first in her family to attend college.
Moreover, in the context of college admissions, “merit” cannot be quantified by grade point average, SAT scores, or number of activities alone. Instead, life experiences such as overcoming racial and ethnic adversity are critical factors in a student’s leadership and potential contribution to the university and to our society. In addition, numbers, like grade point averages and standardized test scores, are not colorblind and often reflect and magnify K-12 educational inequities.
Equal opportunity strengthens our democracy
Affirmative action policies help to level the playing field and promote diverse university learning environments that are essential in our multiracial and multicultural society. Our democracy benefits from a diverse and educated populace and workforce.
Those who are truly committed to equal educational opportunity should demonstrate real leadership and reinvest in higher education throughout the nation to expand access, affordability, equity, and student success. Decades of disinvestment in higher education across the country have made college less accessible for all students, especially students of color. We call for unity in standing up for the future of our youth and realizing the promise of equal opportunity for all in the United States.
