(有許多資料,不斷整理中. 這是初稿 Ver 1. 會在博格裏更新)
起訴申訴經過簡述:
1. 2014年: Edward Blum的組織Project on Fair Representation, 起訴 哈佛, UNC 歧視亞裔
2. 2015年5月: 有64 個組織組成的亞裔聯盟向司法部和教育部的民權辦公室提交了申訴, 指責哈佛歧視 (中文媒體和子壇討論, 常把這個誤稱為"起訴", 其實是兩回事)
1. 亞裔聯盟行動之後. 最先發聲的是亞裔 135個民權組織. 他們發表了一封聯合公開信(附在後麵),
反對亞裔聯盟的立場. 除了重申支持 affirmative action 外, 還支持哈佛的Holistic admission. 下麵的意見說出來他們的主要關心:
“Instead of asking Americans to come together to help address serious problems in our education system, these folks (注: 指亞裔聯盟) 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. 代表黑人墨裔等少數民族的組織 The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 對Ed Blum的右翼組織有很高的警惕性. 正在設法加入 Edward Blum 案, filed "motion to intervene". 他們聲稱, Ed Blum的起訴案的主要對象其實是這些少數民族, 如果起訴成功的話 ' the consequences for blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans would be “catastrophic,” ' 這個強烈反應, 正應了上麵" pushing other communities overboard"
至於白人的份額, 讀了'純白'痛罵哈佛歧視: 'European Americans, who are about 68%"後即知他們的份額大幅縮水. 加上這次Ed Blum的訴訟不是針對他們, 右翼部分支持Blum. 也有不少對亞裔不利的言論.
--
亞裔重視教育, 努力為下一代爭取教育資源, 這無可非議.
問題是在追求哈佛之類的稀有資源 擴大自己利益的過程中, 會動了誰的起司.
哈佛的名額, 被多方追逐. Blum和亞裔聯盟的舉動會促使其他族裔的大反彈. 為了避免Affirmative Action 沒頂, 遭遇"catastrophy", 他們一定會聯手, 奮力一搏.
稀有資源的爭取成功與否, 不是亞裔一廂情願的事情.
這次Ed Blum 的起訴, 其契機是由他主導的Fisher vs. Texas之案在高院遭遇失敗, 高院再次肯定 Affirmative Action. 這促使他重新找一個案例, 繼續挑戰 AA.
亞裔的哈佛入取份額, 成了他手中的新長矛.
隻是, 此大戰剛出師, 黑人墨裔已經聞風而動, 很快地布局了.
哈佛經過多年多次應戰, 也胸有成竹. 其次, 哈佛的 Holistic Admission是當年最高院作為入學標準的範例--種族不是入取的主因, 但為了達到校園有多元化而被容許考慮的一個因素.
這次亞裔的申訴, 與1988年 教育部民權辦公室受理的案例性質類似:
--主要理由是亞裔進哈佛需有著比其他族裔高的 SAT;
--新的理由是: 亞裔份額比例沒有比1992年高. 盡管人口比例增長了. 裏麵一定有貓膩, 有非法 quota
初步解讀:
--SAT一說, 上一次的申訴報告民權辦公室已經讓哈佛過關. 白人除去運動員和有legacy, 亞裔並沒有高於白人. 這一次依舊難以有影響, 尤其是自從那時, 白人的比例比那時下降了近10個百分點.
--亞裔份額一直不變之說並不客觀, 這取決於你選90年代哪一年的數字來比.
90年代哈佛亞裔錄取從15%到 20.3% 都有. 平均約17%. 亞裔聯盟跟著Ron Unz, 挑一那十年裏極大值來和這幾年20%的比例來比較, 不具說服力.
要用事實上不斷浮動但總體上升的比例, 去證明有固定quota, 很難圓其詞.
另外, quota一說, 88年申訴時也提出. 90年結案時, 民權辦公室的調查沒有發現哈佛違法.
這次被Blum重提, 就像加州州大教授 Jennifer Lee所說:
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. 這次亞裔聯盟重複過去的申訴(其實2006年, 2010年分別還有過兩次. 後來上訴人撤案), 至今官方的反應有: 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組織的公開信:
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.
