Saturday, July 11, 2015

如何维护亚裔学生的平等入学的权利

亚洲学生学术上超群地优秀已经是不争的事实。 但学术优秀的亚洲学生被一流大学拒绝也渊源已久。 据查,早在1990年,相关法律出台的第二年,就有亚洲学生代表组织向联邦法院提出了对Harvard, USC就招生过程的歧视提出了诉讼, 并获得了成功。 目前, 随着亚洲移民的数量的增加,这个问题更加严重。 


那么我们怎么去维权呢? 中国有句古话说有理不在声高。 但美国的现状则是, Crying Babies Get Everything.  会哭的孩子得到所有的东西。 我们是一个以优雅为传统的民族,况且,我们所要争的权利--入校权--是和修养紧密相关的权利。 我个人认为,如果我们停留在上街游行可能只能有负面影响。 

我绝对不能说我是这方面的专家。 作为华裔的一分子,为了维护华裔共同的利益,我愿意尽一份微薄的力量, 把我在代理的用工歧视案的过程中所做的研究分享出来, 希望尽绵薄之力。 

我们不难想象,Harvard 和其他Ivy League 不会因为有几个人在窗外呐喊, 就改变自己的招生政策或招生决定。 谁能改变他们? 当然是法院。 那么问题是,他们犯法了吗?

美国宪法第14修改案指出: 任何政府部门不得剥夺任何人法律面前平等的权力。 在该修改案的基础上,美国在1964年制定了美国民权法。 其第六章指出,任何接受联邦政府资金支持的学校不得因种族,肤色,国籍而歧视任何人。 当然还有好些类似的联邦法案相继出了台,比如 Civil right Statute 42. U.S.C 

谁主张谁举证。 他们是被该法律管辖的对象吗?是的。 美国几乎所有的大小学校都有政府资金的介入。 所以他们的行为受该法律管辖。 他们歧视了亚洲人吗? 不难想象,Harvard 等学校会否认他们的决定是基于歧视--仅仅基于申请人是亚裔而做出的。他们有很多解释,比如, 领导能力, 其他非学术方面的能力, 创新能力等等。 那么我们怎么来回应呢?

首先, 我们可以挑战他们的政策的合法性。 也就是说,这种政策允许下的招生行为有没有违反宪法; 如果他们有,他们必须要改招生标准; 

另外就是,我们必须要挑战他们所提出的拒绝招收某个学生的理由是不是只是借口。 比如, 举出若干有所有他们要求的能力的亚裔学生还是被拒绝了, 就能证明他们没有按照他们的政策做,而是由于歧视而拒绝亚裔。 

说起来很简单,但美国的法律从来不是一刀切地绝对的。 具体来说, 如果基于种族而做的决定是以保护另一个更重要的国家利益为目的的, 这样的决定不会被认为是歧视。


总的来说,既然我们决定了要维权, 那么我们应该用智慧和团结的力量坚持下去。 这样我们即能维权,也能获得其他族裔的理解和支持。 我们集体的声望只会因此而上升不会下降。以上系个人意见,仅供参考。 

The Legal Way to Achieve Equal Access for Asian to Elite Colleges

Applying to Ivy League Colleges like Harvard, MIT and Yale has always been stressful. Today, the number of students applying to elite colleges is exploding,
and the applicants have better test scores. Getting into a highly selective university has never been harder.
Yet, Asian-American student face an extra source of stress: race and ethnicity. Admission Discrimination by college is hardly new controversy. Series of legal cases challenging colleges’ quota limiting number of Asian students started as early as 1990.
Recently with the increased numbers of Asian Immigrants and their public complaints, the same issues are under new round of scrutiny. Lately, Students for Fair Admission, an non-profit organization filed lawsuit against Harvard
page1image7504
alleging the university’s practices discriminated Asian students on the basis of race, color and national origin.
Sixty-four Asian-American groups filed similar complaint against Harvard with the federal Departments of Education and Justice claiming unlawful use of race” in its admissions process to discriminate against Asian-American applicants.
In order to win these allegations, it is important to know the legal bases for these complaints. In other word, what laws did the colleges violate?

The root of the anti-discrimination law is fourteenth Amendment of Constitution of the United States. Constitution restricts government power against the people. In order to reach the actions of individuals, Congress, using its power to regulate interstate commerce, enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" in public establishments that have a connection to interstate commerce or are supported by the state. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs. As a matter of fact, since 1964 the Supreme Court has expanded the reach of the 14th Amendment in some situations to individuals discriminating on their own.
Individuals claiming that a federal aid recipient, in this case, elite colleges, has violated Title VI can file an administrative complaint with the federal agency that funded the recipient or with Department of Justice.

Direct proof of discriminatory motive is often unavailable. In the absence of such evidence, the investigating agency must first determine if the complainant can raise an inference of discrimination, then the investigating agency must determine if the recipient can articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory for the chained action, in plain English, a persuasive explanation that the admission policy is not designed to discriminate. If the recipient can articulate a nondiscriminatory explanation for the alleged discriminatory action, the investigating agency must determine whether the record contains sufficient evidence to establish that the recipient's stated reason was a pretext for discrimination. In other words, the evidence must support a finding that the reason articulated by the recipient was not the true reason for the challenged action, and that the real reason was discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.

In closing, discrimination against Asian students by Elite Colleges is elephant in the room. Raising voices is easy, to win and to make them change will take a series of legal battle. Knowing what can be done is ultimately essential to assure equal access of Asian to Elite colleges.