In a few hours, the Supreme Court will begin to hear oral arguments in our admissions case. Throughout my presidency, I have had opportunities to state the facts of the matter. I write now to share some personal reflections. Whatever promise we hold as individuals—for ourselves and for our world—is not predicated on narrowly structured measures of academic distinction. When Harvard assembles a class of undergraduates, it matters that they come from different social, economic, geographical, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. It matters that they come to our campus with varied academic interests and skill sets. Research and lived experience teach us that each student’s learning experience is enriched by encountering classmates who grew up in different circumstances. Harvard is not alone in believing that we are more than our test scores and that our unique perspectives bring a wealth of educational benefits to a high-quality educational enterprise. The legal battle we have waged, which reaches its apex today, is as important to other colleges and universities, and to society, as it is to us. Educators and scholars, civil rights organizers, historians, and education advocates stand with us. Leaders in business and technology stand with us. Former military officers and the heads of the nation’s service academies stand with us. Their voices—ringing out in amicus briefs—are part of a chorus that has risen across our campus and throughout our country in defense of forty years of legal precedent, as well as the history of the 14th Amendment. Today, individuals of great skill will argue in favor of our cause inside the highest court in the land. This includes our colleagues from the University of North Carolina and the solicitor general of the United States. To all those who have worked hard to prepare us for today, thank you. To all those who have amplified and defended our argument on campus and elsewhere, thank you. We now await the final decision of the court with earnest anticipation. Whatever it is, we will honor the law while also remaining true to our values. May we continue to support and appreciate one another, as well as the institution we create together.
In a few hours, the Supreme Court will begin to hear oral arguments in our admissions case. Throughout my presidency, I have had opportunities to state the facts of the matter. I write now to share some personal reflections. Whatever promise we hold as individuals—for ourselves and for our world—is not predicated on narrowly structured measures of academic distinction. When Harvard assembles a class of undergraduates, it matters that they come from different social, economic, geographical, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. It matters that they come to our campus with varied academic interests and skill sets. Research and lived experience teach us that each student’s learning experience is enriched by encountering classmates who grew up in different circumstances. Harvard is not alone in believing that we are more than our test scores and that our unique perspectives bring a wealth of educational benefits to a high-quality educational enterprise. The legal battle we have waged, which reaches its apex today, is as important to other colleges and universities, and to society, as it is to us. Educators and scholars, civil rights organizers, historians, and education advocates stand with us. Leaders in business and technology stand with us. Former military officers and the heads of the nation’s service academies stand with us. Their voices—ringing out in amicus briefs—are part of a chorus that has risen across our campus and throughout our country in defense of forty years of legal precedent, as well as the history of the 14th Amendment. Today, individuals of great skill will argue in favor of our cause inside the highest court in the land. This includes our colleagues from the University of North Carolina and the solicitor general of the United States. To all those who have worked hard to prepare us for today, thank you. To all those who have amplified and defended our argument on campus and elsewhere, thank you. We now await the final decision of the court with earnest anticipation. Whatever it is, we will honor the law while also remaining true to our values. May we continue to support and appreciate one another, as well as the institution we create together.
很多自恨垃圾，真的已经超出正常人的理解范围了。
什么时候华人大妈都不想进哈弗了，什么时候华人就有希望了。
给打官司的组织捐钱，打官司需要很多很多钱，这个官司已经打了13年了，全靠有脊梁的华人捐钱。
我们追求的是不看肤色的标准，小孩上不上得了腾校是另外一回事。你不要混淆概念。
而是，哈佛或类似哈佛这类学校以肤色减少某个族裔的录取这是不公平的
今天你可以说我不喜欢去哈佛，不声援甚至还嘲讽去打官司或声援的人；明天有可能你孩子想去的某大学或公司也是这么录取，你找谁去哭？
一天到晚讲言论自由，不正义得侵害到你自己的利益都不敢说话，这群人有什么出息。
早点给人家优等种族腾出生存空间吧
就是孩子有“高贵血统”aa能占便宜
LOL
你要是告一个公校歧视亚裔，那我支持你。哈弗是私校，它自己定个标准，比如根据体育成绩领袖能力大把加分，你能说它不公平？ 要捐钱打官司，应该去找印度人或者哈弗校友捐
说实话，虽然取不到，对哈佛没那么向往，感觉哈佛在本科阶段就是activists school。
藤校中孩子向往的是普林斯顿，当然普林斯顿他也取不到的，哈哈！
你是拼多多员工？
就吸引不到精英阶级+老钱的孩子们了，这帮人会去别的学校，长久以往，哈弗就会没落。
是哪个组织在打官司啊？
哈佛拿了政府的大量资金，就不能搞种族歧视。这是法律规定，宪法也有不准搞种族歧视。它定什么标准都行，但拿种族肤色做标准，不是种族歧视是什么？它要不就别拿政府资金
Students for Fair Admissions https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/
给各位有望入学名校的家长和孩子们加油！
re 生源差影响深远！毁了本国的教育根基，以后更依赖进口人才了
这就是官司的依据，因为它拿了很多federal funding. 但其实抛开funding 而言私人企业和机构也不应该歧视，比如餐馆和店家就不能因为肤色歧视而拒绝服务，所以那些说人家是私校想干啥都行的人是对宪法的equal protection 不了解。 我自己家的孩子上不上藤校真无所谓，所以之前Univ of Texas 那个案子时并没有太大感觉。但是哈佛太过分了，不光是录不录取华人孩子，而是诋毁华人孩子，以莫须有的罪名给华人孩子低的personality score. 这个歪风不止将来谁都可以说华人就是个工具人，虽然分数高但是没有个性（自恨党觉得自己和自己家孩子没有个性的请不要推及所有华人），以这个为借口打压华人。所以我看了案子的具体后发上就去SFFA 捐钱了。
美国法律判例里，甚至不准私营的基督徒夫妻蛋糕店歧视LGBTQ，何况哈佛是个拿了很多政府和社会资源的NGO，就能明目张胆种族歧视了？
太给你的偶像招黑了，建议你换个马甲来本楼 按照饭圈的标准，带着粉籍要谨言慎行
完全支持考虑家庭经济收入的AA，我不大相信大学AA解决得了黑人贫困的问题，inner city 的多少孩子走得到高中毕业？
楼上两位批评的对！我啥也不懂，都是乱讲的。我衷心希望能够打赢这场官司，为华人长脸！ 也请大家多多支持拼多多，支持战战，支持Zoom，支持Tiktok，支持华为，支持比亚迪！
被拍醒了！谁再敢反对打官司，我和谁急！
原来是黑粉
跪久了 膝盖不疼的吗？
跪着的其实还好。
会有站着的人们替你把刀挡了的。
反对肤色AA。支持基于社会经济地位和家庭情况的适度照顾社会弱势。
你代表谁“支持考虑家庭经济收入的AA”？
你问过版上那些大厂摸鱼年薪70万，资产10米以上的贵妇吗？人家愿意照顾你这种穷人吗？
对这些孩子 需要Fix的就是K-12更多。不过贫困的问题很大，不仅仅是K-12z 大学招生的AA对于肤色贫困其实帮助有限。
按低收入家庭来照顾，版上华人也占不到啥便宜吧，看看贫困线，全美国各种族多少人都指望华人来照顾呢。
想啥呢，版上大多数大妈都好像觉得华人都不干净，唯独她们自己例外。
没关系，到时候哈弗没落了，又有别的牛校兴起，我们华人再去推娃爬新的牛校。反正我们华人有的是钱，不怕砸钱推娃。
确实，反正捐款免税，就当提前交学费了，捐款免一半学费之类的
说实话，有这样的华人学校，我也不会让娃去，其内卷惨烈程度可想而知。
肖战挺帅的，这头像不好看，换一张吧。华为这种恶心的公司，坚决不支持。
作为北美第一家华人私立大学，那必然能成著名学府名留青史。 地点我都想好了。 第一年：新加坡国立 第二年：香港中文大学 第三年：清华大学 第四年：北美，暂定洛杉矶
这个言论有点傻吧
私立大学是私人老板的钱，私立大学没必要公平招生。
只有国家举办的公立大学才需要公平，私立大学不需要公平。
哈佛也有用公立的钱做研究，所以拿人手短
哈佛强的是社交，各种社牛，华人学生如果只学习去哈佛不太容易fit in，各方面全面的亚裔数目在H不算少. 不公平更大的群体是legacy.
人家华裔通过法律手段维权，提出诉求，到你这儿叫不靠谱？就算华人有钱也要通过法律手段。
无知，有哪个私立学校不拿政府funding的？ 现在私房出租都不许种族歧视，怎么到了录取大学就可以名正言顺地歧视亚裔？自恨党不要再辛辛苦苦为别人的歧视找理由了
“我们走后，他们会给你们修学校和医院，会提高你们的工资，这不是因为他们良心发现，也不是因为他们变成了好人，而是因为我们来过。”
In a few hours, the Supreme Court will begin to hear oral arguments in our admissions case. Throughout my presidency, I have had opportunities to state the facts of the matter. I write now to share some personal reflections.
Whatever promise we hold as individuals—for ourselves and for our world—is not predicated on narrowly structured measures of academic distinction. When Harvard assembles a class of undergraduates, it matters that they come from different social, economic, geographical, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. It matters that they come to our campus with varied academic interests and skill sets. Research and lived experience teach us that each student’s learning experience is enriched by encountering classmates who grew up in different circumstances.
Harvard is not alone in believing that we are more than our test scores and that our unique perspectives bring a wealth of educational benefits to a high-quality educational enterprise. The legal battle we have waged, which reaches its apex today, is as important to other colleges and universities, and to society, as it is to us. Educators and scholars, civil rights organizers, historians, and education advocates stand with us. Leaders in business and technology stand with us. Former military officers and the heads of the nation’s service academies stand with us. Their voices—ringing out in amicus briefs—are part of a chorus that has risen across our campus and throughout our country in defense of forty years of legal precedent, as well as the history of the 14th Amendment.
Today, individuals of great skill will argue in favor of our cause inside the highest court in the land. This includes our colleagues from the University of North Carolina and the solicitor general of the United States. To all those who have worked hard to prepare us for today, thank you. To all those who have amplified and defended our argument on campus and elsewhere, thank you. We now await the final decision of the court with earnest anticipation. Whatever it is, we will honor the law while also remaining true to our values. May we continue to support and appreciate one another, as well as the institution we create together.
Sincerely, Larry
什么毛病？grant申请的就不是国家发的钱？
私立公司不招黑人行么？
+1。 你找租客敢说这是我的房子，我不找某些种族的吗？为啥有这么多人认为私立学校就可以按肤色招生
低收入，我还是支持应该给机会。比起我们的孩子，人家确实是很不容易。虽然更希望是k12期间给更多的机会，让他们能跟别的孩子站在同样的线上compete。 用肤色的AA，关键是，你我孩子的同学，明明可能家境比我们的孩子更好，资源比我们更好，只因为肤色不同，被照顾。
我觉得Larry 这个email 写的真是突显了哈佛的傲慢和对宪法精神的蔑视。开始说diversity 很重要那段没什么可说的，正常的argument, 但是接下来一大段说谁谁支持我们就是原形毕露了。 宪法的精神是equal protection, 不能为了greater goods 牺牲小部分人的基本权利，所以他说的这些人都支持他们所以就是对的简直就是傲慢可笑。真不如美国大众理解美国精神。 民调显示大部分美国人支持diversity, 但同时反对affirmative action。 看起来矛盾但其实很合理。
民主党宣传AA的惯用伎俩，说的是AA照顾低收入，操作起来时，即使某华人家庭比某黑人家庭收入低几个数量级，华人小孩仍然要在SAT上给黑人小孩让分。
是啊，就是精英这么想的，你们哪有资格反对，这种态度。
精英的小孩还刷不动SAT AMC？
现在不争取就更受压迫啊包括以后工作。 我知道你说的；这有点像当初打到高法的出生在美国的华裔算不算美国人问题。当时不想承认华裔是因为白人没这个问题。可是高法不判出生既是公民又意味着其他白人后来的也不能是公民。虽然最后判决因为考虑白人利益才那么判，但你不能说华裔没好处。
华裔需要acquire independence，而不是在别人的系统里争宠。无解呀。就算上了大藤，爬ladder中也会被community collecge出来的白人压制的。只能是走自己的路。不能在系统里爬ladder
这么说为了米国的 长远利益也应该支持这个啊， 所以我觉得美国有一个强大的技术上的追赶者，只要不发展到热战的程度， 对于搞技术的人是有利的。
怎么就自取灭亡了？
华人不支持meritocracy？什么叫做太把自己当回事？
有理走遍天下。难道不是华人受损，华人就不支持meritocracy了？
没必要一眼望去就只有种族和利益。什么都是白人如何如何。中国，日本，韩国，这种单一种族的地区，就不实行meritocracy了？
我不认为应该特殊照顾。我支持不看种族经济状况招生，但是招了应该想办法给孩子经济支持。
There's no evidence to say AA is a greater good。我看是evil。
读书读傻了的最好证明。
单一种族的国家多了去了。尤其亚洲，还有好多非洲国家。怎么，人家不够diversified就不成功了？
哪本圣贤古书（不论中外）说diversity是王道，必须人为干预的？何况为什么diversity必须只有性别和种族来区分，不能是性格，专长，爱好呢？
历史上有哪个王朝是因为单一种族灭亡的？是由于多种族兴盛的？
莫名其妙，自我感动的论述！毫无逻辑，活在自己的世界。
私校也不能凌驾宪法之上。不能以种族歧视是所有私人企业，学校都必须遵守的。AA本身就是违宪的。
AA不是只有哈佛在用。如果高法判决违宪，那么将影响全美所有的学校包括公立。
谁说大学本质是一个社交俱乐部？办学的人同意吗？曾经在大学里受过良好教育的人同意吗？
不好好学习把大学当作社交俱乐部本身是羞耻的事情。怎么当作norm在说呢？
去不去大学，申请还是不申请大学是个人自由。但是大学用AA来招生，就是不允许的。
我觉得还是要考虑经济地位，家庭条件不好的孩子确实要难点，从学校回到家说不定一堆事等着看，不大可能全力以赴搞学习，搞各种费钱费时间费精力的这个活动那个活动呢？至于被录取后的学费什么，就是现在这个系统，也不是问题吧
听证正在进行时
Equal opportunity or equal result?
YES
Students for Fair Admissions https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/
这种照顾都是出于主观，而且很难量化。家庭条件多少算不好。那么单亲家庭是不是也要照顾。父母离婚，父母感情不好天天吵架的要不要照顾。
影响孩子学习的因素太多了。还有身体因素。比如有人天生身体不好，怕冷怕热，要不要照顾。
招生看学习，其他主观因素都不要考虑进去，因为很容易就不公平。
每个学生达到自己的水平肯定都是付出了努力的。不能因为人家父母收入不错就抹杀孩子的努力吧。
所以美国精英阶级/老钱的孩子们，是为了想多和老黑老墨社交social，才去的哈佛？？？？
你这都什么逻辑。。
这官司还是白人主导的啊， 亚裔当然也参与了， 打赢了对亚裔肯定有好处。