彙總表裡的一條評論說，亞裔申請人“需要特別努力才能從與眾多相似申請人中脫穎而出”。原告方提交的文件中，似乎還有更多對亞裔申請人不情不願或有意貶損的描述，但已作塗黑處理。
❸ 連面都沒見，就給亞裔最差評分
材料中有一份報告來自杜克大學（Duke University）的經濟學家，阿奇迪亞科諾教授（ Professor Arcidiacono）。
他表示，錄取過程中哈佛大學從“學業”（academic）、“課外”（extracurricular）、“運動”（athletic）、“個性”（personal）和“綜合”（overall）五方面給申請人打分。評級從1到6，1級是最好的。
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.
阿奇迪亞科諾教授稱，在把申請人的範圍縮小到客觀學業資質最強者時，招生辦給亞裔美國人個性評分打低分的可能性遠高於黑人或西班牙裔。
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.
據原告方的分析報告，白人申請者在個性上得到的評價也高於亞裔，21.3%的白人得到1級或2級，而亞裔得到這兩個評級的只有17.6%。
同時，該報告還將哈佛校友給出的評分與招生辦做了對比：
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.
哈佛校友面試官給亞裔和白人的個性評分不相上下。但阿奇迪亞科諾教授說，招生辦公室常常連亞裔申請人的面都沒見，就給出了所有種族裡最差的評分。
對此，哈佛大學解釋稱：
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.
哈佛大學表示，雖然招生官員有可能並不面見申請人，但他們從申請人的申請陳述以及推薦信等材料也能判斷其個性特質。
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.
校方稱，哈佛招生委員會有40名成員，其中一些成員為亞裔，他們不可能下結論說亞裔不如他族裔的學生有個人魅力。
❹ 哈佛內部調查顯示對亞裔申請人存偏見
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%.
哈佛大學的官員承認，校方2013年的內部調查發現，如果錄取學生只看學業成績，亞裔學生在一屆學生中的比例將從現實中的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%.
將哈佛優先錄取體育特長生和校友子女的因素考慮在內，則白人學生比例上升，亞裔比例下降到31％。再算上課外活動及個性評分，白人的比例就進一步上升，亞裔比例下降到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.
這項調查發現，把亞裔學生比例降到接近18%或者現有實際水平的，是算上了所謂“人口分佈”的因素。這使非裔和西語裔學生比例提高，壓低了白人和亞裔比例。原告方指出，這就等於是對亞裔身份的一種懲罰。
哈佛大學的內部報告說：
“Further details (especially around the personal rating) may provide further insight,”
“更多細節（尤其是有關個性評估的）可能會帶來更深入的瞭解。”
但原告方在15日的動議中說，接下來並沒有更深入的瞭解，因為“哈佛終止了研究，悄悄掩藏了研究報告（Harvard killed the study and quietly buried the reports）。”
哈佛則表示，沒有重視這份內部報告是因為調查還比較初步，不夠完整（because it was preliminary and incomplete）。
哈佛大學如何回應？
哈佛大學15日表示強烈反對，聲稱校方專家的分析顯示並無歧視，而追求多元化是學生錄取的重要一環。
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.
哈佛抨擊了“學生公平錄取”組織創始人愛德華·布魯姆，指責他利用哈佛再次非難大學錄取工作中的“積極平權措施”，上一次是費舍爾起訴德克薩斯大學奧斯汀分校。2016年最高法院對後者做出裁決，認定種族可以是學生錄取過程中的諸多考慮因素之一。
“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.”
“全面透徹地分析數據和證據，就能清楚地看到哈佛大學並不歧視任何群體的申請人，包括亞裔美國人，該群體的錄取比例在過去十年中已經增長了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.”
“布魯姆先生和他的組織片面地、誤導性地分析數據，忽略了關鍵數據和背景信息，對哈佛大學全面評估每個申請人的錄取過程做出了嚴重失實的描繪。”
在法庭文件中，哈佛大學稱，原告的統計分析看不到哈佛錄取工作中涉及的許多無形因素。
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.
哈佛聲稱原告方專家、杜克大學經濟學家彼得·阿奇迪亞科諾為有利的結論歪曲數據，篩掉了因校友子女、運動員、教工子弟等身份而受惠的申請人，這其中也有亞裔美國人。原告方對此辯稱，專家剔除這些申請人是希望排除其他影響因素，單純著眼於種族對學生錄取的影響。
訴訟雙方在15日都提交了文件，要求法庭立即做出有利己方的判決。
法官很可能拒絕他們的請求，如果拒絕，案件將在10月進行庭審。
If it goes on to the Supreme Court, it could upend decades of affirmative action policies at colleges and universities across the country.
如果案件訴至最高法院，可能會推翻全美各地的大學實行了幾十年的“積極平權措施”政策。
除了哈佛之外，其他常春藤盟校也面臨著招收更多亞裔美國學生的壓力。普林斯頓、康奈爾等校都有大量亞裔申請人。而這些大學的亞裔學生比例與哈佛相當。
閱讀更多 中國日報雙語新聞 的文章
