【重磅】美国司法部出手，力挺亚裔状告哈佛！

今天一早，8/30/2018，美国司法部发表声明，强烈谴责哈佛大学在录取过程中歧视亚裔的做法，高调支持SFFA状告哈佛一案。司法部说，哈佛的做法，就是最高法院判决中"毫无疑问的违宪行为"！

声明指出："哈佛每年接收数百万美元纳税人资助，作为条件，哈佛特别同意在录取过程中不会针对任何族裔采取歧视性措施。 然而，提起诉讼的学生和家长们提交了令人信服的证据，证明哈佛使用种族因素非法歧视亚裔美国人。 在今天提交的材料中，美国政府敦促法院授予原告开庭的诉求，以便他们有机会在庭审过程中证实以上指控。"

为什么司法部这么说？因为哈佛大学一直到今天还在竭力避免开庭。周一，哈佛的律师再一次要求法官取消10月15号的庭审（trial），直接判哈佛胜诉。所以司法部今天的法庭文件就是敦促法官，给亚裔原告一个机会可以当庭呈递证据，那么作为被告，哈佛同样有机会证明自己的清白。

司法部长塞申斯说，"没有一个美国人应该由于自己的种族而被拒绝入学。 哈佛接受纳税人的资助，所以有责任通过使用合法的，有实际意义的录取标准，杜绝种族歧视。 司法部有责任保护美国人民的公民权利。 这起诉讼意义重大，因为我们的学院和大学的招生政策很重要，必须符合法律要求。"

这里要强调一点，司法部隶属美国政府，是一个行政部门，而法院则属于司法体系。基于三/权/分/立的原则，即使司法部也无法命令法院怎么做，而只能像老百姓一样打官司。但是司法部显然不是一般人，它代表着美国政府的观点，所以今天的声明意义非凡。

美国各大媒体也在第一时间进行了报道：

华尔街日报：司法部说哈佛利用"个人评分"压制亚裔美国人的录取

纽约时报：亚裔学生状告哈佛的AA诉讼赢得了司法部的支持

NBC南加：川普政府支持亚裔学生状告哈佛

司法部还阐述了哈佛大学如何利用主观的"个人评分"，也就是仅仅根据一个考生的书面材料，就决定他/她的"受欢迎程度"，"好人"，"品格"等等。更重要的是，哈佛自己也承认，亚裔学生的"个人评分"普遍低于其他族裔。（甚至有报道指出，即使哈佛的面试官对亚裔考生的印象非常好，他们的推荐也往往被录取部门忽视，依然会给一个低分。）

司法部说，虽然高院允许大学适当考虑种族，但是同时要求大学必须提供合理的解释，证明没有在"考虑种族"的过程中非法歧视他人，而哈佛大学从来没有提供合理的解释。

最关键的一段话是关于种族配额的指控，熟悉美国法律的都知道，这是最高法院命令禁止的行为：

大量证据还表明，哈佛招生办的官员和委员会一直在监督和操控新生的种族构成，这导致哈佛大学每年录取的学生中族裔分布一直很稳定。 最高法院称这种企图维持“种族平衡”的做法是"专利一般的违宪行为"。

关于此案的大背景，以及针对常春藤联盟的各种抗议和诉讼，飞洋在线已经发表过无数文章，包括科普和评论，因此不再赘述。不熟悉的读者可以参考文末推荐阅读。

飞洋在线

10/15庭审异常关键，而且可以肯定的是，败诉的一方必然会上诉，最终将由最高法院一锤定音。

这将是一场里程碑式的判决，也是我们这代华人最后的一次机会：能不能为孩子争取到平等入学的机会，接下来一战定乾坤。而成功与否，将完全取决于川普提名的保守派大法官Kavanaugh能否顺利上任。成，我们就胜券在握；败，一切都归于未知。

This is it, folks. Let's give it all!

司法部的声明原文：

The Department of Justice today filed a Statement of Interest on the side of the plaintiff in Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President And Fellows Of Harvard College in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiff, Students For Fair Admissions, an organization of students and parents, alleges that Harvard College intentionally discriminates against Asian-American applicants when making admissions decisions. The plaintiff seeks relief from Harvard’s alleged discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a cornerstone civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. The Department opened a Title VI investigation into Harvard’s admissions process in 2017 based upon a complaint filed by more than 60 Asian-American organizations.

The United States’ Statement of Interest filed today argues that Harvard has failed to show that it does not unlawfully discriminate against Asian Americans.

As a condition【1】 of receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer funding every year, Harvard specifically agrees to not discriminate on the basis of race in its admissions decisions. However, the students and parents who brought this suit have presented compelling evidence that Harvard’s use of race unlawfully discriminates against Asian Americans. In today’s filing, the United States urges the court to grant the plaintiffs the opportunity to prove these claims at trial.

In filing the Statement of Interest, Attorney General Jeff Sessions provided the following statement:

“No American should be denied admission to school because of their race. As a recipient of taxpayer dollars, Harvard has a responsibility to conduct its admissions policy without racial discrimination by using meaningful admissions criteria that meet lawful requirements. The Department of Justice has the responsibility to protect the civil rights of the American people. This case is significant because the admissions policies at our colleges and universities are important and must be conducted lawfully.”

Harvard admits that it uses race to decide whether to admit certain applicants to the college. Under Supreme Court precedent, Harvard must demonstrate that its use of race does not result in illegal discrimination. Harvard has failed to do so, and the Department filed a Statement of Interest that argues the plaintiffs should be allowed to proceed to a trial.

While Harvard admits to using race in its admissions process, it has failed to provide any meaningful criteria to explain how it weighs race against other factors in a candidate’s application (e.g., test scores and extracurricular activities), and how it limits its use of race to ensure that no illegal discrimination occurs. Supreme Court precedent requires Harvard to provide such an explanation, which it has failed to do in this case.

Further, the evidence shows that Harvard uses a “personal rating” that may be biased against Asian Americans. Based solely on a review of the applicant’s file, Harvard scores its applicants based on “subjective” factors such as “likability” and being a “good person” with “human qualities.” Harvard admits that, on average, it scores Asian-American applicants lower on this “personal rating” than applicants of other races.

Substantial evidence also demonstrates that Harvard admissions officers and committees consistently monitor and manipulate the racial makeup of incoming classes, which has resulted in stable racial demographics in Harvard’s admitted classes from year to year. The Supreme Court has called such attempts to “racially balance” the makeup of a student body “patently unconstitutional.”

Finally, the Justice Department has determined that Harvard—while using race to make admissions decisions for more than 45 years—has never seriously considered alternative, race-neutral ways to compile a diverse student body, which it is required to do under existing law.

More information about the Civil Rights Division and the civil rights laws it enforces is available at www.usdoj.gov/crt.

【1】See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 275-76 & n.23 (2003) (“[D]iscrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment committed by an institution that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI.”). 

###

推荐阅读

飞洋在线

一个来自美国，可信的公众号

网络版：PacifiLink.com 

欢迎加飞洋在线微信：PacifiLink

部分图片来自网络，版权归摄影师所有

飞洋在线原创，转载请事先联系获得授权