“人都没见,直接给亚裔最低分”,哈佛被揭发歧视亚裔新证据

  进入世界顶尖大学读书,是不少人的梦想,不过考核的标准可不简单。

  除了学习成绩、社团活动、体育素质、性格特质……学生的种族居然也是一道门槛?

  此前,非营利组织“学生公平录取”(Students for Fair Admissions, SFFA)就起诉美国常青藤名校哈佛大学:

  控告其非法歧视亚裔美籍申请人

  6月15日,“学生公平录取”组织向波士顿联邦法院提交了一份报告,为证明哈佛歧视亚裔申请人提供了新证据。

  这份报告分析对照了2010-2015年间哈佛大学的申请和录取材料,其中包括16万名学生的数据。

  据《纽约时报》报道,这份报告显示,哈佛给亚裔学生的个人性格评分普遍低于其他族裔:

  Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to the analysis.

  这份报告显示,在“积极人格”、亲和力、勇气、善良和“广受尊敬”等性格特质上,哈佛给亚裔美籍申请人打出的评分一直低于其他族裔申请人。

  尽管亚裔学生在考试成绩、课外活动等客观录取指标上得分更高,但这项偏主观的“性格评分”却拉低了他们的录取几率:

  Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, according to the analysis commissioned by SFFA. But the students’ personal ratings significantly dragged down their chances of being admitted, the analysis found.

  “学生公平录取”组织委托进行的这项分析显示,在测验得分、成绩、课外活动这些录取指标上,亚裔美国学生的得分比其他种族或族裔的申请人都高。但亚裔学生的性格评分却显著拉低了他们的录取几率。

  这份文件曝出的另一个重磅细节是,哈佛大学其实曾进行过内部调查,也发现其对亚裔美籍申请人存有偏见,但却未将调查报告公之于众。

  The court documents, filed in federal court in Boston, also showed that Harvard conducted an internal investigation into its admissions policies in 2013 and found a bias against Asian-American applicants.

  提交给波士顿联邦法院的这些法庭文件还显示,哈佛大学在2013年对其招生政策进行过内部调查,也发现了对亚裔美籍申请人存有偏见。

  But Harvard ultimately killed the study and buried the reports from it.

  但哈佛最终终止了这项调查,并掩藏了调查报告。

  《纽约时报》称:

  Harvard had fought furiously over the last few months to keep secret the documents that were unsealed Friday.

  此前数月,哈佛进行了激烈的抗争,想阻止15日披露的这些材料被公之于众。

  这份报告是“学生公平录取”起诉哈佛大学歧视亚裔案的最新证据:

  The suit says that Harvard imposes what is in effect a soft quota of “racial balancing.” This keeps the numbers of Asian-Americans artificially low, while advancing less qualified white, black and Hispanic applicants, the plaintiffs contend.

  此次诉讼称哈佛事实上实施了“种族平衡”的软配额。原告声称,该制度人为地压缩亚裔学生人数,使资质更逊色的白人、黑人和西语裔申请人得到录取机会。

  报告细节:面都没见,就给亚裔最差评分

  下面来看看这份报告中的一些细节。

  ?与上世纪20年代为控制犹太学生数量采取的歧视政策如出一辙

  哈佛大学在20世纪20年代为控制越来越多的犹太学生人数采取过一些措施,这些都有过详细记载。原告方把哈佛对待亚裔的措施与之进行了比较。

  Until the 1920s, applicants had been admitted on academic merit. To avoid adopting a blatant quota system, Harvard introduced subjective criteria like character, personality and promise. The plaintiffs call this the “original sin of holistic admissions.”

  在20世纪20年代之前,哈佛录取新生只依据申请人的学业能力。之后,为了(控制犹太学生人数,且)不让配额制太明显,哈佛引入了性格、气质、前途等主观性标准。原告方称之为“全面入学评估的原罪”。

  They argue that the same character-based system is being used now to hold the proportion of Asian-Americans at Harvard to roughly 20 percent year after year, except for minor increases, they say, spurred by litigation.

  原告方认为哈佛现在用同样的基于性格的录取评估制度,年复一年地把亚裔学生比例控制在20%左右,其中只有几次微小的增长,还都是被诉讼所迫。

  ?录取更多亚裔对白人申请者最为不利

  原告方认为录取更多亚裔对白人申请者最为不利。

  On summary sheets, Asian-American applicants were much more likely than other races to be described as “standard strong,” meaning lacking special qualities that would warrant admission, even though they were more academically qualified, the plaintiffs said.

  原告方称,在评估汇总表上亚裔比其他种族的申请人有更大可能得到“一般优秀”的评价,也就是说还缺乏确保录取的特长,哪怕他们学业成绩更优。

  They were 25 percent more likely than white applicants to receive that rating.

  亚裔获得这一评价的几率比白人申请者高出25%。

  One summary sheet comment said the Asian-American applicant would “need to fight it out with many similar” applicants. The plaintiffs’ papers appeared to offer other examples of grudging or derogatory descriptions of Asian applications, but they had been redacted.

  汇总表里的一条评论说,亚裔申请人“需要特别努力才能从与众多相似申请人中脱颖而出”。原告方提交的文件中,似乎还有更多对亚裔申请人不情不愿或有意贬损的描述,但已作涂黑处理。

  ?连面都没见,就给亚裔最差评分

  材料中有一份报告来自杜克大学(Duke University)的经济学家,阿奇迪亚科诺教授( Professor Arcidiacono)。

  他表示,录取过程中哈佛大学从“学业”(academic)、“课外”(extracurricular)、“运动”(athletic)、“个性”(personal)和“综合”(overall)五方面给申请人打分。评级从1到6,1级是最好的。

  Arcidiacono shows that, after narrowing down applicants to those with the strongest objective academic qualifications, Asian Americans were far more likely than blacks or Hispanics to receive a low personality score from admissions officers.

  阿奇迪亚科诺教授称,在把申请人的范围缩小到客观学业资质最强者时,招生办给亚裔美国人个性评分打低分的可能性远高于黑人或西班牙裔。

  Whites get higher personal ratings than Asian-Americans, with 21.3% of white applicants getting a 1 or 2 compared to 17.6% of Asian-Americans, according to the plaintiffs’ analysis.

  据原告方的分析报告,白人申请者在个性上得到的评价也高于亚裔,21.3%的白人得到1级或2级,而亚裔得到这两个评级的只有17.6%。

  同时,该报告还将哈佛校友给出的评分与招生办做了对比:

  Alumni interviewers give Asian-Americans personal ratings comparable to those of whites. But the admissions office gives them the worst scores of any racial group, often without even meeting them, according to Professor Arcidiacono.

  哈佛校友面试官给亚裔和白人的个性评分不相上下。但阿奇迪亚科诺教授说,招生办公室常常连亚裔申请人的面都没见,就给出了所有种族里最差的评分。

  对此,哈佛大学解释称:

  Harvard said that while admissions officers may not meet the applicants, they can judge their personal qualities based on factors like personal essays and letters of recommendation.

  哈佛大学表示,虽然招生官员有可能并不面见申请人,但他们从申请人的申请陈述以及推荐信等材料也能判断其个性特质。

  Harvard said it was implausible that Harvard’s 40-member admissions committee, some of whom were Asian-Americans, would conclude that Asian-American applicants were less personable than other races.

  校方称,哈佛招生委员会有40名成员,其中一些成员为亚裔,他们不可能下结论说亚裔不如他族裔的学生有个人魅力。

  ?哈佛内部调查显示对亚裔申请人存偏见

  University officials did concede that its 2013 internal review found that if Harvard considered only academic achievement, the Asian-American share of the class would rise to 43% from the actual 19%.

  哈佛大学的官员承认,校方2013年的内部调查发现,如果录取学生只看学业成绩,亚裔学生在一届学生中的比例将从现实中的19%上升到43%。

  After accounting for Harvard’s preference for recruited athletes and legacy applicants, the proportion of whites went up, while the share of Asian-Americans fell to 31%. Accounting for extracurricular and personal ratings, the share of whites rose again, and Asian-Americans fell to 26%.

  将哈佛优先录取体育特长生和校友子女的因素考虑在内,则白人学生比例上升,亚裔比例下降到31%。再算上课外活动及个性评分,白人的比例就进一步上升,亚裔比例下降到26%。

  What brought the Asian-American number down to roughly 18%, or about the actual share, was accounting for a category called “demographic,” the study found. This pushed up African-American and Hispanic numbers, while reducing whites and Asian-Americans. The plaintiffs said this meant there was a penalty for being Asian-American.

  这项调查发现,把亚裔学生比例降到接近18%或者现有实际水平的,是算上了所谓“人口分布”的因素。这使非裔和西语裔学生比例提高,压低了白人和亚裔比例。原告方指出,这就等于是对亚裔身份的一种惩罚。

  哈佛大学的内部报告说:

  “Further details (especially around the personal rating) may provide further insight,”

  “更多细节(尤其是有关个性评估的)可能会带来更深入的了解。”

  但原告方在15日的动议中说,接下来并没有更深入的了解,因为“哈佛终止了研究,悄悄掩藏了研究报告(Harvard killed the study and quietly buried the reports)。”

  哈佛则表示,没有重视这份内部报告是因为调查还比较初步,不够完整(because it was preliminary and incomplete)。

  哈佛大学如何回应?

  哈佛大学15日表示强烈反对,声称校方专家的分析显示并无歧视,而追求多元化是学生录取的重要一环。

  The university lashed out at the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, Edward Blum, accusing him of using Harvard to replay a previous challenge to affirmative action in college admissions, Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin. In its 2016 decision in that case, the Supreme Court ruled that race could be used as one of many factors in admissions.

  哈佛抨击了“学生公平录取”组织创始人爱德华·布鲁姆,指责他利用哈佛再次非难大学录取工作中的“积极平权措施”,上一次是费舍尔起诉德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校。2016年最高法院对后者做出裁决,认定种族可以是学生录取过程中的诸多考虑因素之一。

  哈佛大学在一份声明中说:

  “Thorough and comprehensive analysis of the data and evidence makes clear that Harvard College does not discriminate against applicants from any group, including Asian-Americans, whose rate of admission has grown 29% over the last decade.”

  “全面透彻地分析数据和证据,就能清楚地看到哈佛大学并不歧视任何群体的申请人,包括亚裔美国人,该群体的录取比例在过去十年中已经增长了29%。”

  “Mr. Blum and his organization’s incomplete and misleading data analysis paint a dangerously inaccurate picture of Harvard College’s whole-person admissions process by omitting critical data and information factors.”

  “布鲁姆先生和他的组织片面地、误导性地分析数据,忽略了关键数据和背景信息,对哈佛大学全面评估每个申请人的录取过程做出了严重失实的描绘。”

  在法庭文件中,哈佛大学称,原告的统计分析看不到哈佛录取工作中涉及的许多无形因素。

  Harvard said that the plaintiffs’ expert, Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke University economist, had mined the data to his advantage by taking out applicants who were favored because they were legacies, athletes, the children of staff and the like, including Asian-Americans. In response, the plaintiffs said their expert had factored out these applicants because he wanted to look at the pure effect of race on admissions, unclouded by other factors.

  哈佛声称原告方专家、杜克大学经济学家彼得·阿奇迪亚科诺为有利的结论歪曲数据,筛掉了因校友子女、运动员、教工子弟等身份而受惠的申请人,这其中也有亚裔美国人。原告方对此辩称,专家剔除这些申请人是希望排除其他影响因素,单纯着眼于种族对学生录取的影响。

  诉讼双方在15日都提交了文件,要求法庭立即做出有利己方的判决。

  法官很可能拒绝他们的请求,如果拒绝,案件将在10月进行庭审。

  If it goes on to the Supreme Court, it could upend decades of affirmative action policies at colleges and universities across the country.

  如果案件诉至最高法院,可能会推翻全美各地的大学实行了几十年的“积极平权措施”政策。

  除了哈佛之外,其他常春藤盟校也面临着招收更多亚裔美国学生的压力。普林斯顿、康奈尔等校都有大量亚裔申请人。而这些大学的亚裔学生比例与哈佛相当。

  文章来源:中国日报双语新闻