回到上周的判決。大法官的詮釋體現出了金博士和民權運動的初衷，即人們“will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." AA 多少有點像嬰兒的紙尿布，它確實在民權運動的嬰兒時期發揮了積極作用。但這些年來，實際執行中變成了按照種族分名額，就像一個糕點鋪，奶油卷檸檬卷巧克力卷，各有定額，各類跟同類分別內卷，於是就出現了檸檬卷不但需要比巧克力卷大一號，甚至需要比不必照顧的奶油卷大一圈（SAT高140分)才算合格的咄咄怪事。我的絕大部分亞裔朋友並不反對給非裔西裔適當照顧，但後者就顯得有點詭異了吧。事實上AA把DEI狹隘化了，變成了按種族貼標簽分果果，在60年來各種多元化多樣化大大進步的條件下，已經可以淘汰，就像小孩完成了potty training就不再需要紙尿布一樣。DEI 當然要包容各個種族，但更加重要的是包容各種思潮和不同的看法，相互協調平衡，共贏而非對立。
“Oxford and Cambridge have long rejected the practice of legacy admissions. “Most people from Britain are genuinely shocked to find that elite U.S. universities reserve places for the children of the rich and well connected,” writes British academic Nigel Thrift in the Chronicle of Higher Education.”
MIT, UC Berkeley, Oxford, CalTech, Cambridge and University of Washington
這其中包括牛津和劍橋，連他們都摒棄legacy了，legacy在美國還有保留的必要嘛？
“Oxford and Cambridge have long rejected the practice of legacy admissions. “Most people from Britain are genuinely shocked to find that elite U.S. universities reserve places for the children of the rich and well connected,” writes British academic Nigel Thrift in the Chronicle of Higher Education.”
MIT 講得也很直接：
n a 2012 blog post, Assistant Director of Admissions at MIT Chris Peterson wrote, “Preferring a student whose parents attended a college not only takes away a spot from an equal or better student, it specifically takes away a spot from an equal or better student who overcame more by not having the advantages accrued by prior generations.”
“To be clear: If you got into MIT, it’s because you got into MIT. Simple as that.”
回到上周的判決。大法官的詮釋體現出了金博士和民權運動的初衷，即人們“will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." AA 多少有點像嬰兒的紙尿布，它確實在民權運動的嬰兒時期發揮了積極作用。但這些年來，實際執行中變成了按照種族分名額，就像一個糕點鋪，奶油卷檸檬卷巧克力卷，各有定額，各類跟同類分別內卷，於是就出現了檸檬卷不但需要比巧克力卷大一號，甚至需要比不必照顧的奶油卷大一圈（SAT高140分)才算合格的咄咄怪事。我的絕大部分亞裔朋友並不反對給非裔西裔適當照顧，但後者就顯得有點詭異了吧。事實上AA把DEI狹隘化了，變成了按種族貼標簽分果果，在60年來各種多元化多樣化大大進步的條件下，已經可以淘汰，就像小孩完成了potty training就不再需要紙尿布一樣。DEI 當然要包容各個種族，但更加重要的是包容各種思潮和不同的看法，相互協調平衡，共贏而非對立。
