麻省法官认为哈佛歧视亚裔合法并支持哈佛继续歧视亚裔. 这就去捐款让他们申诉到最高法院. (CNN)A US district judge in Boston has upheld Harvard's admissions process following a challenge from a group representing Asian American applicants who believe the school discriminated against them. Judge Allison Burroughs ruled Tuesday that while Harvard's admissions process is "not perfect," she will not "dismantle a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster, solely because it could do better." In her 130-page opinion, Burroughs stressed that race-conscious admissions hold "an important place in society and help ensure that colleges and universities can offer a diverse atmosphere that fosters learning, improves scholarship, and encourages mutual respect and understanding." The ruling in the closely watched case is likely to be appealed and culminate in a national showdown over affirmative action at the US Supreme Court. The challengers had argued at trial that as the "personal" rating system disfavors Asian Americans, it favors blacks and Hispanics, who generally have lower standardized test scores compared with Asian Americans. The storied Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus accepts only about 5% of its 40,000 applicants each year. Read: Judge's ruling in Harvard affirmative action case Read: Judge's ruling in Harvard affirmative action case The Harvard ruling comes as college admissions practices are being scrutinized nationwide, including by federal prosecutors who allege that celebrity and other wealthy parents paid off coaches and education administrators to falsify student records to help them win acceptance at elite schools. The Harvard dispute centers on a wholly different but nonetheless longstanding point of contention: how institutions use students' race to boost the chances of traditionally disadvantaged applicants and enhance diversity on campus. Affirmative action challenge Edward Blum, a conservative lawyer who had engineered the challenge filed in 2014, said his group, Students for Fair Admissions, would appeal to decision for the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals. "We believe that the documents, emails, data analysis and depositions SFFA presented at trial compellingly revealed Harvard's systematic discrimination against Asian American applicants," Blum said in a statement. Blum has long opposed racial policies that have primarily benefitted blacks and Hispanics. In the past, Blum had sought white students to challenge affirmative action. In 2016, such a case he engineered against affirmative action at the University of Texas at Austin lost narrowly at the Supreme Court. The Harvard lawsuit was brought under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race discrimination at schools that receive federal funds. Filed on behalf of Asian Americans but without any named individuals alleging bias, the case has accelerated simmering complaints from students of Asian heritage that their numbers at Ivy League institutions are capped, just as Jewish students faced quotas on elite campuses in the last century. At its broadest, Blum crafted the case to challenge a 1978 Supreme Court precedent that first upheld campus affirmative action, permitting universities to consider the race of an applicant among many factors, toward the goal of greater campus diversity, and forbidding racial quotas in admissions. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was decided by a 5-4 vote and has been affirmed by narrow splits through the years. It now appears a possible target of reversal at a Supreme Court that has grown more conservative and in recent years and overturned a handful of liberal precedents from the 1970s. Burroughs found that "Harvard's admission program passes constitutional muster in that it satisfies the dictates of strict scrutiny." "The students who are admitted to Harvard and choose to attend will live and learn surrounded by all sorts of people, with all sorts of experiences, beliefs and talents" she wrote. "They will have the opportunity to know and understand one another beyond race, as whole individuals with unique histories and experiences. It is this, at Harvard and elsewhere that will move us, one day, to the point where we see that race is a fact, but not the defining fact and not the fact that tells us what is important, but we are not there yet." An appeal of Burroughs' ruling would go first to the 1st Circuit, before any battle over race at the reconstituted Supreme Court, with two new appointees of President Donald Trump. Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the deciding vote in the University of Texas case. He was succeeded last year by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose record is more conservative than Kennedy's. The Trump administration submitted a "statement of interest" in the Harvard case, siding with the SFFA challengers and noting that the administration was investigating Harvard's screening processes after complaints to the Department of Education from more than 60 Asian American groups. The Obama administration had fielded and rejected similar complaints. 'Personal' ratings Given the escalating competition in college admissions nationally, the trial drew an overflow crowd to Burroughs' courtroom. The three-week hearing ended on November 2, 2018, and separate closing arguments were held on February 13, 2019. During those hearings, the challengers argued that based on data they had obtained from Harvard, that admissions officials engaged in stereotypes that discriminated unlawfully against Asian American applicants, including stereotyping students of Asian descent as "book-smart" and "not personable." Students for Fair Admissions asserted four claims under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: that Harvard unlawfully holds Asian Americans to a higher standard than students of other races; that it engages in racial balancing to keep roughly the same percentages of racial groups; that it uses race not as a single "plus factor" but as a defining characteristic for admission; and, finally, that Harvard bypassed race-neutral options that for campus diversity, such as tied to students' socioeconomic backgrounds. Harvard lawyers countered that any claims that Asian Americans fared poorly on "personal" scores arose from SFFA's selective mining of data that failed to include the full pool of applicants, among them favored children of alumni, faculty and staff, and accomplished athletes. The percentage of Asian American students accepted at Harvard has steadily increased in recent years. Harvard reports that of those students entering this fall as the class of 2023, Asian Americans make up 25.6%, African Americans 13.1% Hispanics 11.8% and Native Americans and Native Hawaiians 2.2%. The remaining category, 47%, covers mostly white students. Each year Harvard accepts about 2,000 students, then ends up with a freshman class of about 1,600 students who choose to attend, from a pool of about 40,000 applicants annually. Harvard lawyers argued that if racial affirmative action were disallowed, the number of African American and Hispanic students in the total student body of 6,700 would fall by roughly 1,000. In her ruling, Burroughs rejected the arguments that Harvard could obtain sufficient diversity by looking at non-racial criteria, such as a family's economic status. "Harvard has demonstrated," she concluded, "that there are no workable and available race-neutral alternatives, singly or taken in combination, that would allow it to achieve an adequately diverse student body while still perpetuating its standards for academic and other measures of excellence." No expert on either side of the case, Burroughs wrote, had proposed an alternative that would allow Harvard to "meet its diversity goals while not unduly compromising on its other legitimate institutional objectives." Regarding the Asian American "personal" ratings, Burroughs said she saw "no evidence of discrimination" beyond a "slight numerical disparity." "The statistical disparity is relatively minor," she wrote, "and can be at least partially explained by a variety of factors" including information derived from teacher and guidance counselor recommendations. "Even if there is an unwarranted disparity in the personal ratings, the court is unable to identify any individual applicant whose admissions decision was affected and finds that the disparity in the personal ratings did not burden Asian American applicants significantly more than Harvard's race-conscious policies burdened white applicants," the judge wrote. "Further, there is no evidence of any discriminatory animus or conscious prejudice. But Burroughs was not without some criticism for Harvard, suggesting some changes in its admissions office. "The process would likely benefit from conducting implicit bias trainings for admissions officers, maintaining clear guidelines on the use of race in the admissions process, which were developed during this litigation, and monitoring and making admissions officers aware of any significant race-related statistical disparities in the rating process," she wrote. This story is breaking and will be updated.
(CNN)A US district judge in Boston has upheld Harvard's admissions process following a challenge from a group representing Asian American applicants who believe the school discriminated against them.
Judge Allison Burroughs ruled Tuesday that while Harvard's admissions process is "not perfect," she will not "dismantle a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster, solely because it could do better." In her 130-page opinion, Burroughs stressed that race-conscious admissions hold "an important place in society and help ensure that colleges and universities can offer a diverse atmosphere that fosters learning, improves scholarship, and encourages mutual respect and understanding." The ruling in the closely watched case is likely to be appealed and culminate in a national showdown over affirmative action at the US Supreme Court. The challengers had argued at trial that as the "personal" rating system disfavors Asian Americans, it favors blacks and Hispanics, who generally have lower standardized test scores compared with Asian Americans. The storied Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus accepts only about 5% of its 40,000 applicants each year. Read: Judge's ruling in Harvard affirmative action case Read: Judge's ruling in Harvard affirmative action case The Harvard ruling comes as college admissions practices are being scrutinized nationwide, including by federal prosecutors who allege that celebrity and other wealthy parents paid off coaches and education administrators to falsify student records to help them win acceptance at elite schools. The Harvard dispute centers on a wholly different but nonetheless longstanding point of contention: how institutions use students' race to boost the chances of traditionally disadvantaged applicants and enhance diversity on campus. Affirmative action challenge Edward Blum, a conservative lawyer who had engineered the challenge filed in 2014, said his group, Students for Fair Admissions, would appeal to decision for the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals. "We believe that the documents, emails, data analysis and depositions SFFA presented at trial compellingly revealed Harvard's systematic discrimination against Asian American applicants," Blum said in a statement. Blum has long opposed racial policies that have primarily benefitted blacks and Hispanics. In the past, Blum had sought white students to challenge affirmative action. In 2016, such a case he engineered against affirmative action at the University of Texas at Austin lost narrowly at the Supreme Court. The Harvard lawsuit was brought under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race discrimination at schools that receive federal funds. Filed on behalf of Asian Americans but without any named individuals alleging bias, the case has accelerated simmering complaints from students of Asian heritage that their numbers at Ivy League institutions are capped, just as Jewish students faced quotas on elite campuses in the last century. At its broadest, Blum crafted the case to challenge a 1978 Supreme Court precedent that first upheld campus affirmative action, permitting universities to consider the race of an applicant among many factors, toward the goal of greater campus diversity, and forbidding racial quotas in admissions. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was decided by a 5-4 vote and has been affirmed by narrow splits through the years. It now appears a possible target of reversal at a Supreme Court that has grown more conservative and in recent years and overturned a handful of liberal precedents from the 1970s. Burroughs found that "Harvard's admission program passes constitutional muster in that it satisfies the dictates of strict scrutiny."
"The students who are admitted to Harvard and choose to attend will live and learn surrounded by all sorts of people, with all sorts of experiences, beliefs and talents" she wrote. "They will have the opportunity to know and understand one another beyond race, as whole individuals with unique histories and experiences. It is this, at Harvard and elsewhere that will move us, one day, to the point where we see that race is a fact, but not the defining fact and not the fact that tells us what is important, but we are not there yet." An appeal of Burroughs' ruling would go first to the 1st Circuit, before any battle over race at the reconstituted Supreme Court, with two new appointees of President Donald Trump. Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the deciding vote in the University of Texas case. He was succeeded last year by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose record is more conservative than Kennedy's. The Trump administration submitted a "statement of interest" in the Harvard case, siding with the SFFA challengers and noting that the administration was investigating Harvard's screening processes after complaints to the Department of Education from more than 60 Asian American groups. The Obama administration had fielded and rejected similar complaints. 'Personal' ratings Given the escalating competition in college admissions nationally, the trial drew an overflow crowd to Burroughs' courtroom. The three-week hearing ended on November 2, 2018, and separate closing arguments were held on February 13, 2019. During those hearings, the challengers argued that based on data they had obtained from Harvard, that admissions officials engaged in stereotypes that discriminated unlawfully against Asian American applicants, including stereotyping students of Asian descent as "book-smart" and "not personable." Students for Fair Admissions asserted four claims under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: that Harvard unlawfully holds Asian Americans to a higher standard than students of other races; that it engages in racial balancing to keep roughly the same percentages of racial groups; that it uses race not as a single "plus factor" but as a defining characteristic for admission; and, finally, that Harvard bypassed race-neutral options that for campus diversity, such as tied to students' socioeconomic backgrounds. Harvard lawyers countered that any claims that Asian Americans fared poorly on "personal" scores arose from SFFA's selective mining of data that failed to include the full pool of applicants, among them favored children of alumni, faculty and staff, and accomplished athletes. The percentage of Asian American students accepted at Harvard has steadily increased in recent years. Harvard reports that of those students entering this fall as the class of 2023, Asian Americans make up 25.6%, African Americans 13.1% Hispanics 11.8% and Native Americans and Native Hawaiians 2.2%. The remaining category, 47%, covers mostly white students. Each year Harvard accepts about 2,000 students, then ends up with a freshman class of about 1,600 students who choose to attend, from a pool of about 40,000 applicants annually. Harvard lawyers argued that if racial affirmative action were disallowed, the number of African American and Hispanic students in the total student body of 6,700 would fall by roughly 1,000. In her ruling, Burroughs rejected the arguments that Harvard could obtain sufficient diversity by looking at non-racial criteria, such as a family's economic status. "Harvard has demonstrated," she concluded, "that there are no workable and available race-neutral alternatives, singly or taken in combination, that would allow it to achieve an adequately diverse student body while still perpetuating its standards for academic and other measures of excellence." No expert on either side of the case, Burroughs wrote, had proposed an alternative that would allow Harvard to "meet its diversity goals while not unduly compromising on its other legitimate institutional objectives." Regarding the Asian American "personal" ratings, Burroughs said she saw "no evidence of discrimination" beyond a "slight numerical disparity." "The statistical disparity is relatively minor," she wrote, "and can be at least partially explained by a variety of factors" including information derived from teacher and guidance counselor recommendations. "Even if there is an unwarranted disparity in the personal ratings, the court is unable to identify any individual applicant whose admissions decision was affected and finds that the disparity in the personal ratings did not burden Asian American applicants significantly more than Harvard's race-conscious policies burdened white applicants," the judge wrote. "Further, there is no evidence of any discriminatory animus or conscious prejudice. But Burroughs was not without some criticism for Harvard, suggesting some changes in its admissions office. "The process would likely benefit from conducting implicit bias trainings for admissions officers, maintaining clear guidelines on the use of race in the admissions process, which were developed during this litigation, and monitoring and making admissions officers aware of any significant race-related statistical disparities in the rating process," she wrote. This story is breaking and will be updated.
给个摘要？ ---发自Huaren 官方 iOS APP
麻省法官认为哈佛歧视亚裔合法并支持哈佛继续歧视亚裔.
☆ 发自 iPhone 华人一网 1.14.05
很无语呀！华人自己放弃抗争... 回想到之前被藤校据收然后自杀的亚裔
悲伤
你这个结论是承认歧视的意思啊？
不是放弃，是胆小自私。 等于明白告诉世界随便欺负无后果。
从这个现象看，人哈佛不录取这些“高分”学生确实没错啊。这样的自私懦弱，凭什么上哈佛？
判决结果属于意料之中的。
为了多任命几个保守派法官，大选和普选都一定要选共和党。希望老川连任，多换上一些联邦和基层保守派法官。希望这次哈佛判决给支持民主党的老中敲敲警钟，看看民主党对华人啥态度，醒醒吧
读到一个数据点，说白人被admitted里面有43%的比例显示事得到了特殊照顾的。其中只有25%是不受照顾也符合入学要求。也就是说，有。43X。75=32%的白人学生其实是不qualified？
一定程度上我觉得非墨需要继续被照顾。这是社会现实，也有历史根源。很难现在就废除AA。
但是如果能比较大程度遏制legacy, dean's list这些被更大群众团体厌恶的制度，也会有所得益了。
另外一个比较重要的点是，哈佛在个性评分方面给亚裔系统性的打分偏低。而经过interview的亚裔则并无这个问题。这也是系统性歧视的一个有利证据。同时也很大程度上影响到我自己的看法。
以前经常会自我检讨，是不是我们华裔家庭的value，教育的方法是有问题的。并不是现在就可以说完全没有问题。但是至少说明了，stereotyping之深入人心，都严重影响了我们自己对自己孩子以及家庭教育的看法了。
一方面我们应该继续支持这个CASe的上诉，直至最高法院。另一方面我们要更加努力的融入大环境，影响大环境，制造更多的exposure的机会。同时也应该对自己的self identity更加的自信。
多任命保守派法官， 右翼会借助亚裔干掉AA， 然后藤校继续降低亚裔录取比例。 藤校没有任何incentives多录亚裔。 亚裔在美国社会影响力太小了。
如果是这样，可能就真的被人当枪使了。
AA目前还是不能完全废除吧。社会从认知到现实确实还挺多racial inequality存在。
藤校毕业生的平均捐款2000多，包括黑人。 亚裔只有200多，好像是2015年的数据。
很有可能 ， 左右都把亚裔当餐巾纸， 需要的时候拿起来，擦玩之后扔一边。
那么亚裔更需要学会左右逢源的技术，对谁也别托付真心了。
follow the money, 想想是谁资助SFFA？真的是靠亚裔捐款的吗？
具体一点？如何查看呢？
他们确实说不需要捐款。
查了一下，这两个组织捐款再2016是最多的：Searle Freedom Trust and DonorsTrust,
但是对哈弗的lawsuit他们并没有支持。SFT支持Sue UT 和UNC