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。
❸ 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。
❹ 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。
“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。
閱讀更多 中國日報雙語新聞 的文章
