你和哈佛的距離，只差一棟樓……亞裔控告哈佛大學招生歧視

近日，亞裔控告哈佛大學招生歧視案庭審最新資料公開，哈佛招生辦官員內部郵件顯示，富裕且與哈佛建立長期關係階層疑似存在錄取優待，其中甚至有相關人員捐出了一棟樓，這其中白人學生超過亞裔以及非裔。哈佛招生辦負責人甚至被校方高層誇讚爲“我的英雄”。

想去哈佛讀書？最好能捐棟樓

The numbers are ruthless: Out of more than 40,000 applications a year to Harvard University, not quite 2,000 make the final cut. Just one admitted for every 19 rejected. Every year high school seniors with straight A’s, perfect test scores and stellar recommendations wonder why they didn’t make it.

數據是殘酷的：每年有超過4萬名學生申請哈佛大學，但僅有兩千人被錄取。每錄取一名學生，就有19名學生遭到拒絕。拿到全A、成績全優、手握重量級推薦信，每年都有很多這樣的高中生不知道爲什麼自己沒有被錄取。

Want a place at Harvard? Persuade your parents to give the university a nice gift. A new building, perhaps, or a million dollars for a fellowship. That sort of thing.

想在哈佛大學讀書嗎？說服你的父母給這所大學送份好禮：一棟新樓，或者一百萬美元（約合694萬元人民幣）的獎學金，諸如此類。

It has long been understood that you can, to some extent, buy your way into many of the US’s prestigious universities. There are certainly plenty of examples of people with more money than sense being admitted to elite educational institutions.

長期以來，人們一直認爲在某種程度上，美國的許多名牌大學花錢就可以上。有很多例子可以表明，精英教育機構在錄取時會選擇有錢人，而不是有才的人。

Jared Kushner, for example, got into Harvard despite having a mediocre academic record. To be fair, this may have had nothing to do with his father pledging $2.5m to the university shortly before he was accepted. Perhaps the admissions office just had a hunch that this was the genius who was finally going to bring peace to the Middle East.

比如，特朗普的女婿賈裏德•庫什納學生時期雖然成績平平，卻被哈佛大學錄取。或許，這與他的父親曾在他被錄取之前承諾向哈佛捐贈250萬美元無關。或許，招生辦公室只是預見到，他纔是最終爲中東帶來和平的天才。

亞裔控告哈佛招生歧視

哈佛大學等一些美國名校在招生過程中以“平權法案”爲由，通過大幅提高錄取標準、設置“種族配額”等方式，將不少優秀的亞裔學生擋在門外。

哈佛大學被控多年來在招生過程中蓄意歧視亞裔申請學生，位於波士頓的美國聯邦地區法院15日開庭審理此案，引發全美關注。

While it is no secret that offering financial gifts to certain Ivy League universities may compensate for a lack of natural gifts, the extent to which Harvard’s admission process favors relatives of big donors is only now being laid bare. This is thanks to a lawsuit currently under way against Harvard that accuses the university of discriminating against Asian Americans.

雖然向某些常春藤盟校捐款可以彌補天資上的不足早已不是祕密，但哈佛在錄取過程中偏愛大金主的做法最近才被披露出來。這要歸功於目前針對哈佛歧視亞裔的一場訴訟。

A 2013 email exchange among Harvard administrators, for example, was presented at the trial on Wednesday.

比如，上週三的庭審中公開了一份2013年校方管理人員之間的郵件往來。

In one email (subject line: “My Hero”), the dean of the university’s Kennedy school of government commends the dean of admissions for doing a great job in extending offers to students with generous parents.

在一封標題名爲“我的英雄”的郵件中，哈佛大學肯尼迪政府學院院長稱讚招生辦負責人（William Fitzsimmons）在招收富裕階層的子女方面做得很好。

“Once again you have done wonders. I am simply thrilled about the folks you were able to admit,” the email says. “[Redacted] has already committed to a building.” The other people described as “big wins” in the email were connected to donors who had “committed major money for fellowships”.

郵件中說：“你再次創造了奇蹟。看到你招進來的這些學生，我簡直太開心了。某某位家長已經承諾要捐一棟樓。”郵件中還說，有些“金主”背後的捐贈者還“承諾要捐一大筆獎學金”。

Another email made public in the trial talked about rolling out the red carpet for an applicant whose family had donated $1.1m to Harvard. There is also an email exchange in which a Harvard development officer and an admissions dean discuss how much money they are likely to extract from a candidate. “Going forward, I don’t see a significant opportunity for further major gifts,” the email says. “[Redacted] had an art collection which conceivably could come our way. More probably it will go to [a] museum.”

庭審中，另一封被公開的電子郵件談到，一位申請人的家人向哈佛大學捐贈了110萬美元，爲他爭取到了入學資格。還有一封電子郵件中，一名哈佛大學發展官員和招生主任討論他們可能會從一名候選人身上榨取多少錢。郵件中寫道。“進一步說，拿到更多捐贈的機會不大。（捐贈者）有件藝術收藏品，可以想見，有可能會給我們，但更有可能是送去博物館。”

本案中的原告辯稱，哈佛大學通過不斷採取一些較爲模糊的措施來歧視亞裔美國人。儘管亞裔美國人預計在2022年佔該校錄取人數的22.7%，比亞裔在美國人口中所佔的比例高得多。但內部審查幾年前指出，如果哈佛的衡量標準只有考試成績，亞裔錄取人數的佔比將是43%。

根據庭審資料，過去六年，哈佛錄取的體育生、捐贈者相關者、畢業生或教職員工家庭的傳統生中的白人學生達約2680人，超過這一期間錄取的所有亞裔學生人數2460人，而非裔和拉丁裔錄取生人數加起來才2693人。

其實，一些美國名校在招生時歧視亞裔學生已不是祕密。

普林斯頓大學一項研究發現，亞裔學生的SAT成績需要比白人高出140分，比拉美裔高270分，比非洲裔高450分才能進入美國一流大學，超高的分數線被稱爲“亞裔稅”。

哈佛大學這樣迴應

Nonetheless, Fitzsimmons said Harvard has good reason to pay attention to backers.

但（招生辦負責人）費茨西門斯說，哈佛有充分理由對支持者給予更多關注。

"It is important for the long-term strength of the institution, in that we have the resources we need to, among other things, provide scholarships," he said.

他說：“這對學校的長期實力很重要，這樣我們才能擁有提供獎學金等所需的資源。”

費茨西門斯說，哈佛給予優待的類別很多，不僅限於體育生、捐贈生和傳統生。

Harvard also offers an advantage to applicants from Boston and Cambridge, low-income students, and those from more rural states, Fitzsimmons said.

他說，哈佛大學給予招生優待的還包括來自波士頓和劍橋的學生、低收入學生、以及較偏遠州的申請者。

但大多數哈佛學生都來自富裕家庭。

Harvard’s 2019 class is 40 percent white, 24 percent Asian-American, 14 percent African-American and 14 percent Hispanic — but a massive 82 percent of those scholars are economically advantaged, said Kahlenberg.

哈佛大學2019級新生中有40%是白人，24%是亞裔，14%是非洲裔、還有14%是西班牙裔。但有多達82%的學生來自富裕家庭。

Dean of Harvard College Rakesh Khurana later confirmed that the school’s own data shows 30 percent of students at Harvard come from the top 5 percent of household incomes in the US — earning more than $150,000 a year.

哈佛大學學院院長拉凱什·庫拉納之後確認說，學校統計數據顯示，30%的學生來自家庭收入位列全美家庭收入前5%的家庭，也就是家庭年收入超過15萬美元。

“Harvard University is literally the richest university in the entire country. [Its] $37 billion endowment is bigger than the GDP of half the world’s countries,” Richard Kahlenberg said.

（起訴團體的專家證人）理查德·卡倫伯格說：“實際上哈佛大學已經成爲全美最有錢的大學，學校獲得的370億美元的捐贈比全球半數國家的國內生產總值都要高。”

Talking to reporters outside the courtroom, one of Harvard's lawyers, William Lee, emphasized that while the children of some donors get in, some don't. He added that there's no evidence the preference affects Asian-Americans.

哈佛大學的一位律師威廉·李在法庭外接受記者採訪時強調，儘管一些捐贈者的子女獲得錄取，也有另一部分沒被錄取。沒有證據表明這種招生偏好對亞裔學生有影響。

美國司法部正就此調查

哈佛大學歧視亞裔問題終於受到美國政府關注，司法部正在就此進行調查。

但哈佛大學方面沒有配合調查，其律師聲稱招生方式已獲得聯邦法院認可。

美國司法部官員表示，司法部“別無選擇，只能認定哈佛大學違反民權法第六條”。

美國民權法第六條規定，任何人在美國不得因種族、膚色或出生地而受到任何接受聯邦財政資助的項目或活動的歧視。

美國司法部指責哈佛大學不配合調查，“試圖逃避‘第六條’的責任”。

儘管調查遇到困難，司法部堅持要求哈佛大學提交招生文件。如果12月1日前哈佛大學仍未提交，司法部可能會提起訴訟。

Conservatives love to decry affirmative action as “reverse racism” and condemn the idea of racial quotas. What this lawsuit, perhaps inadvertently, has made abundantly clear, however, is that the most widespread affirmative action programs at play in elite institutions don’t help minority racial groups – they help rich, predominantly white people.

保守派們喜歡譴責平權法案是“逆向的種族主義”，譴責種族配額的觀念。然而，這場官司，也許是無意中弄清楚了一件事，在精英機構中廣泛實施的平權行動計劃並沒有幫助少數族裔，他們幫助的是富人，而且主要是白人。