哈佛應當免費嗎?
這是哈佛大學監事會推舉時一群外部候選人提出的敏感題目。該監事會旨在幫助哈佛制訂計謀。他們宣稱，哈佛應用376億美元的捐錢賺取了大筆財帛，以是應該為本科生免去膏火。
不外，他們把這一看法與另外一個一樣敏感的題目放在了一路：哈佛是不是在登科過程當中虧待亞裔申請人?
加尼福尼亞守舊派、軟件創業人士羅恩·溫茨(Ron Unz)聯結了五位哈佛校友的力氣。溫茨贊助過以否決雙語教導為目的的多項選票發起。固然在這個“免費哈佛、公正哈佛”活動中有一名左傾成員——提倡花費者好處的拉爾夫·納德(Ralph Nader)——然則溫茨和其他三位候選人撰文或在聽證會中竭盡全力地作證，否決平權辦法，否決基於族裔的登科軌制。
他們的態度呼應著聯邦法院的一宗關於哈佛大學在登科時輕視亞裔的訴訟。哈佛否定這些控告。
不管是不是偶合，該訴訟中的原告對哈佛的請求和這群監事候選人的請求完整同等：公然數據，解釋哈佛每一年招錄復活的情形。
這些政治象征濃重的數占有大概揭穿哈佛是不是故意疏忽較為優良的亞裔申請人，而青睞白人、黑人、拉丁裔和顯貴階級的後代。
“咱們存眷的僅僅是登科的透明度，”溫茨說，“也便是催促哈佛宣布他們若何遴選那一小群勝利申請者的具體信息，阻攔在一套完整不透明的軌制下驚人的潛伏權利濫用。”
豈論這個候選人集團的政治念頭若何，溫茨等成員都捉住了高級教導中兩個愈來愈有爭議的話題：天文數字般的大學用度寧靜權辦法。
上大學用度的急劇膨脹成了總統大選的熱點話題，多位候選人提出了辦理計劃，從當局撥款，到私家投資者出資以調換門生未來收入的必定比例。國會山的一些議員也提出了與溫茨的集團相似的設法主意——大學收到的捐錢也應當用來付出膏火。
美國最高法院正在斟酌族裔是不是應該作為大學登科的一個要素。由於所謂的弱勢少數群體——黑人、拉丁裔和美洲土著——在哈佛和其他許多大學遭到了厚待，而亞裔則位於宣稱本身的機遇遭到褫奪的群體之列。
溫茨和他的集團以為，這兩個題目是聯系關系的。他們稱，一旦哈佛免膏火的新聞傳開，來自各類配景的高程度候選者都邑大幅增長，大學將再也不存在均衡族裔多樣性的題目。
而假如哈佛為本科生免去膏火，納德說，“影響就將波及全部常春藤盟校。”
大概吧。哈佛的治理層表現，縱然這個集團勝利，他們的這個設法主意也是天方夜譚。他們指出，哈佛的捐錢分為數千個基金，它們各有詳細用處，與本科生沒有幹系。
“有一個廣泛的誤會，便是包含哈佛在內的大學收到的捐錢可以像有了一個銀行賬戶同樣隨取隨用，只要錢沒有效完就行。”哈佛的一名談話人傑夫·尼爾(Jeff Neal)說，“究竟上，哈佛在應用捐錢時的靈巧度遭到許多限定，第一是必需是永續治理，第二是救濟者的意願。”
尼爾還說，固然膏火很高，然則像許多收到大筆捐錢的大學同樣，哈佛供給大方的助學金，在曩昔十年向本科生付與的助學金已跨越14億美元。
然則溫茨以為，縱然有大概得到助學金，有望入學的低收入申請者仍舊會因公然的4.5萬美元一年的膏火而覺得灰心。
溫茨在2012年對哈佛和其他常春藤同盟院校的登科數據舉行了剖析，並以此辯駁哈佛的說法。他表現，他的團隊並非向哈佛施壓，請求破除平權辦法，他們只是願望獲得更多的信息。但是，該集團中的一些成員曾公然否決把族裔身分納入登科考量當中。
鄭立(Lee C. Cheng，音)便是個中之一。他是在線電子零售商新蛋網(Newegg.com)的首席司法參謀，結合創立的一家構造曾向最高法院遞交過一份訴訟擇要文件，以支撐一位白人原告對德克薩斯大學的訴訟。
在“大門生公正登科”(Students for Fair Admissions)構造對哈佛的訴訟中，也說起了鄭立。
該集團的另外一個成員小斯圖亞特·泰勒(Stuart Taylor Jr.)曾是《紐約時報》的記者。2012年，他與人合著了一本書，以為平權行為損害了少數族裔門生。另外一個成員史蒂芬·許(Stephen Hsu)是密歇根州立大學的物理學家和副校長，他也撰文否決將種族身分納入大學招錄當中。
在哈佛得到法學學位的納德稱，由於傳承緣故原由和其他偏好，招錄體系“這幾十年來早已一片淩亂”。
費舍爾案的庭審文件中，哈佛稱，如果大門生公正登科構造一案中的原告博得訴訟，就會逆轉該校為樹立種族多元的校園所做出的盡力。
由30個成員構成、每六年從新推舉的哈佛大學監事會是哈佛權利第二大的委員會。成員大多經過哈佛校友會(Harvard Alumni Association)提名後推舉發生。
為了進入投票關鍵，其他候選人必需在本月得到201位哈佛校友的具名推舉。
這些天，溫茨正忙於匯集具名。他以為他的集團的機遇很大。明顯，他的計謀一方面取決於總人數32萬上下的哈佛校友介入投票比例較低，另外一方面要寄願望於“公正哈佛”的呼聲可以或許讓為數一萬五到兩萬的亞裔美國校友振抖擻來。
【參考譯文】
Should Harvard be free?
That is the provocative question posed by an outsider slate of candidates running for the Board of Overseers at Harvard, which helps set strategy for the university. They say Harvard makes so much money from its $37.6 billion endowment that it should stop charging tuition to undergraduates.
But they have tied the notion to another equally provocative question: Does Harvard shortchange Asian-American applicants in admissions?
The slate of five former students was put together by Ron Unz, a conservative from California and software entrepreneur who sponsored ballots initiatives opposing bilingual education. Although the campaign, “Free Harvard, Fair Harvard,” includes one left-leaning member — the consumer advocate Ralph Nader — Mr. Unz and the other three candidates have written or testified extensively against affirmative action, opposing race-based admissions.
Their positions are in lock step with accusations in a federal lawsuit accusing the university of discriminating against Asian-Americans in admissions. Harvard has denied the allegations.
Coincidence or not, the plaintiffs in that case are seeking from Harvard exactly what the slate of candidates wants: disclosure of data showing how the university’s freshman class is selected each year.
The politically charged data holds the potential to reveal whether Harvard bypasses better-qualified Asian-American candidates in favor of whites, blacks and Hispanics, and the children of the wealthy and powerful, the group argues.
“Our focus is entirely on greater transparency in admissions,” Mr. Unz said, “namely urging Harvard to provide much more detailed information on how they select the very small slice of applicants receiving offers of admission, in order to curb the huge potential abuse possible under the entirely opaque system.”
Whatever the political motivations of the slate, Mr. Unz and the other members have hit on two increasingly contentious issues in higher education: astronomical college costs and affirmative action.
The ballooning expense of college has become a hot topic in the presidential race, with several candidates proposing solutions ranging from government-financed tuition to the idea that private investors could finance college expenses in exchange for a share of an individual’s future earnings. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have proposed an idea similar to the one held by Mr. Unz’s slate — that college endowments should be tapped to cover tuition.
The United States Supreme Court is considering whether race should be used as a factor in college admissions. As so-called underrepresented minorities — blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans — get a boost at Harvard and many other colleges, Asian-Americans are among those who say they lose out.
Mr. Unz and his group argue that the two issues are related. They say that once word spreads about a free Harvard education, the number of highly qualified candidates from all backgrounds will spike, and the university will no longer have trouble balancing its class for racial or ethnic diversity.
And if Harvard abolishes tuition for undergrads, Mr. Nader said, “It will ricochet across the Ivy League.”
Maybe. Officials at Harvard suggested that even if the slate were to win, the idea is a nonstarter, pointing out that the endowment is split into thousands of funds designated for specific uses that have nothing to do with undergraduates.
“There is a common misconception that endowments, including Harvard’s, can be accessed like bank accounts, used for anything at any time as long as funds are available,” Jeff Neal, a Harvard spokesman, said. “In reality, Harvard’s flexibility in spending from the endowment is limited by the fact that it must be maintained in perpetuity and that it is largely restricted by the explicit wishes of those who contributed the endowed funds.”
Mr. Neal also said that although tuition is high, Harvard, like many universities with large endowments, is generous with financial aid, awarding more than $1.4 billion to undergraduates in the past decade.
But Mr. Unz believes that even with the potential aid, prospective low-income applicants may be discouraged by the published tuition of $45,000 a year.
Mr. Unz, whose 2012 data analysis of admissions at Harvard and other Ivy League institutions is cited in the case against the university, said his slate was not pressing to abolish affirmative action at Harvard, it was seeking only to get more information. But several members of the group are known for their past advocacy against using race in admissions.
One is Lee C. Cheng, chief legal counsel for the online electronics retailer Newegg.com, who is co-founder of an organization that filed a brief in support of the white plaintiff in the lawsuit against the University of Texas that is before the Supreme Court.
Mr. Cheng is also quoted in the suit against Harvard, which was brought by Students for Fair Admissions.
Another member of the slate is Stuart Taylor Jr., a former reporter for The New York Times who is co-author of a 2012 book contending that affirmative action harms minority students. And another is Stephen Hsu, a physicist and vice president at Michigan State University who has written against the use of race in college admissions.
Mr. Nader, who got his law degree from Harvard, said the admissions system has been “bollixed up for decades” by legacies and other preferences.
In court documents filed in the Fisher case, Harvard says a victory for the plaintiffs in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit would overturn its efforts to build a racially diverse class.
The Board of Overseers, with 30 members elected for rotating six-year terms, is the second most powerful board at the university. Members are generally elected from nominees selected by the Harvard Alumni Association.
To be placed on the ballot, other candidates must get petitions signed this month by 201 Harvard alumni.
Mr. Unz, who these days is busy collecting signatures, believes his group stands a good chance. Part of his strategy apparently relies on low turnout among the 320,000 or so alumni, combined with the hope that an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 Asian-American graduates will be energized by the “Fair Harvard” plank.
市場價：HK$ 92
