華盛頓——本周四，得克薩斯大學奧斯汀分校(University of Texas at Austin)一個具備種族意識的招生存劃遭遇的挑釁被最高法院駁回，平權行為的支撐者們得到了龐大成功。
該案件是費希爾訴得克薩斯大學案(Fisher v. University of Texas)，第14-981號，法院的判決觸及一個分歧平常的招生存劃，同時也向其他大學發出了一個告誡：並非全部的平權行為籌劃都相符憲法劃定。但這個判決的根本信息是，招生官員可以持續把族裔作為一個斟酌身分，和其他許多身分一路來確保門生的多元化。
該判決以4比3票數經由過程，讓人覺得不測。重要看法書作者、大法官安東尼·M·肯尼迪(Anthony M. Kennedy)一向對種族敏感的項目持疑惑立場，以前歷來沒有在投票中支撐過平權行為籌劃。在上一次的龐大平權行為案例中，他屬於貳言方。
這個判決引發了平權行為支撐者的喝彩，稱其為一個裏程碑。
“在種族包涵和教導多樣性的汗青長河中，究竟將會證實，自從布朗訴教導局(Brown v. Board of Education)以來，尚未湧現過費希爾如許主要的案件，”哈佛大學法學傳授勞倫斯·H·特賴布(Laurence H. Tribe)說。在他所說的布朗案中，最高法院於1954年判決破除公立黌舍的種族斷絕軌制。
機遇均等中間(Center for Equal Opportunity)的主席羅傑·克萊格(Roger Clegg)支撐不分膚色的政策，他說，這一判決固然使人絕望，但波折只是臨時的。
“法院的訊斷留下了充足的空間，今後還可以對其他黌舍的種族優惠政策提出挑釁，”他說。“這場奮斗將持續下去。”
奧巴馬總統對這個判決予以了誇獎。“我很愉快，最高法院保持了根本原則，即多元化是咱們社會的主要代價，”他在白宮告知記者。“咱們國度不會包管成果同等，但咱們盡力為全部人供給一個同等的機遇。”
肯尼迪代表多半看法方寫道，對付大學的招生存劃支配，法院必需給大學留出很大的，但不是百分之百的余地。
“從很大水平上說，大學是由一些‘雖不克不及客觀察量但能令人崇高的那些品德’決議的，”肯尼迪寫道，他援用了一個具備裏程碑意義的破除種族斷絕案例。“諸如門生多元組成如許的無形特點，是大學本身身份和教導任務的焦點，咱們理應答界說了這些特點的大學致以敬意。”
“只管如斯，”肯尼迪說，“要在多元的尋求和憲法對平期待遇和莊嚴的許諾之間殺青同等，仍舊是我國教導系統面對的一個歷久挑釁。”
大法官魯思·巴德爾·金斯伯格(Ruth Bader Ginsburg)、史蒂芬·G·布雷耶(Stephen G. Breyer)、索尼婭·索托馬約爾(Sonia Sotomayor)與肯尼迪看法類似。大法官埃琳娜·卡根(Elena Kagan)頗有大概也屬於這一方，不外她曾作為副法律部長介入過此案，是以需躲避。
由大法官小塞繆爾·A·阿利托(Samuel A. Alito Jr.)執筆的分歧看法書篇幅很長，且說話劇烈，註解兩邊存在緊張不合，看法書訓斥了最高法院的這個判決，稱該大學沒有展現出他們有根據種族來招生的須要，並且相對貧苦門生，前提好的門生更能從這個招生存劃中受益。
“這是平權行為的得意忘形，”阿利托對同事們說。他稱他們在受誤導的情形下做出了“完整毛病”的判決
依據的克薩斯大學的招生存劃，對本州大部門申請者都實施“前10%的籌劃”，以包管該州每所高中的拔尖門生能被登科。固然稱為前10%，但每一年的百分比大概有所分歧。
前10%籌劃帶來了顯著的族裔多樣性。比方在2011年，依據該籌劃招收的復活中有26%是西語裔美國人，6%是黑人。在得克薩斯的總生齒中，約38%的西語裔，12%是黑人。
案件挑釁的是該招生存劃的另一部門。按拍照關劃定，來得意州和其他處所的別的門生，就須要根據尺度，將進修成就和包含族裔在內的其他身分斟酌在內。許多高校全部的登科決議都是依據這類團體性根據做出的。
周四被駁回的案件是由白人女子阿比蓋爾·費希爾(Abigail Fisher)提起的。她說得克薩斯大學奧斯汀分校由於種族緣故原由謝絕登科她。今朝，她已從路易斯安那州立大學(Louisiana State University)卒業。
“對付最高法院剖斷可以因種族或民族而對申請得克薩斯大學的門生差別看待，我深感絕望，”費希爾在周四揭櫫的一份聲明中說。“我願望有一天，我國可以或許超過平權行為。”
【參考譯文】
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin, handing supporters of affirmative action a major victory.
The decision, Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 14-981, concerned an unusual program and contained a warning to other universities that not all affirmative action programs will pass constitutional muster. But the ruling’s basic message was that admissions officials may continue to consider race as one factor among many in ensuring a diverse student body.
The decision, by a 4-3 vote, was unexpected. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the author of the majority opinion, has long been skeptical of race-sensitive programs and had never before voted to uphold an affirmative action plan. He dissented in the last major affirmative action case.
Supporters of affirmative action hailed the decision as a landmark.
“No decision since Brown v. Board of Education has been as important as Fisher will prove to be in the long history of racial inclusion and educational diversity,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, referring to the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision striking down segregated public schools.
Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which supports colorblind policies, said the decision, though disappointing, was only a temporary setback.
“The court’s decision leaves plenty of room for future challenges to racial preference policies at other schools,” he said. “The struggle goes on.”
President Barack Obama hailed the decision. “I’m pleased that the Supreme Court upheld the basic notion that diversity is an important value in our society,” he told reporters at the White House. “We are not a country that guarantees equal outcomes, but we do strive to provide an equal shot to everybody.”
Kennedy, writing for the majority, said courts must give universities substantial but not total leeway in designing their admissions programs.
“A university is in large part defined by those intangible ‘qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness,'” Kennedy wrote, quoting from a landmark desegregation case. “Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission.”
“But still,” Kennedy added, “it remains an enduring challenge to our nation’s education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity.”
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kennedy’s majority opinion. Justice Elena Kagan, who would most likely have voted with the majority, was recused from the case because she had worked on it as solicitor general.
In a lengthy and impassioned dissent delivered from the bench, a sign of deep disagreement, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. denounced the court’s ruling, saying that the university had not demonstrated the need for race-based admissions and that the Texas program benefited advantaged students over impoverished ones.
“This is affirmative action gone berserk,” Alito told his colleagues, adding that what they had done in the case was misguided and “is simply wrong.”
Under the University of Texas’ admissions program, most applicants from within the state are admitted under a part of the program that guarantees admission to top students in every high school in the state. This is often called the Top 10 Percent program, though the percentage cutoff can vary by year.
The Top 10 Percent program has produced significant racial and ethnic diversity. In 2011, for instance, 26 percent of freshmen who enrolled under the program were Hispanic, and 6 percent were black. The population of Texas is about 38 percent Hispanic and 12 percent black.
The case challenged a second part of the admissions program. Under it, remaining students from Texas and elsewhere are considered under standards that take into account academic achievement and other factors, including race and ethnicity. Many colleges and universities base all of their admissions decisions on such holistic grounds.
Thursday’s case was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white woman who said the university had denied her admission based on her race. She has since graduated from Louisiana State University.
“I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has ruled that students applying to the University of Texas can be treated differently because of their race or ethnicity,” Fisher said in a statement Thursday. “I hope that the nation will one day move beyond affirmative action.”
市場價：HK$ 110
