来源：《美联社新闻》
原文刊登日期：2021年6月14日
With abortion and guns already on the agenda, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court is considering adding a third blockbuster issue — whether to ban consideration of race in college admissions.
随着堕胎和枪支问题已经提上日程，保守派占主导地位的最高法院正在考虑增加第三个重磅议题——是否禁止在大学录取中考虑种族因素。
The justices on Monday put off a decision about whether they will hear an appeal claiming that Harvard discriminates against Asian American applicants, in a case that could have nationwide repercussions. The court asked the Justice Department to weigh in on the case, a process that typically takes several months.
周一，大法官们推迟了是否审理哈佛大学歧视亚裔美国申请人的上诉的决定。这一案件可能会产生全国性的影响。最高法院要求司法部介入此案，这个过程通常需要几个月的时间。
The presence of three appointees of former President Donald Trump could prompt the court to take up the case, even though it’s been only five years since its last decision in a case about affirmative action in higher education. In that case, the court reaffirmed in a 4-3 decision that colleges and universities may consider race in admissions decisions.
前总统唐纳德·特朗普任命的三名大法官的存在可能会促使最高法院审理此案，尽管距离最高法院上一次就高等教育平权行动做出裁决只有五年时间。在该案中，最高法院以4比3的票数重申，大学可以在录取决定中考虑种族因素。
Two members of that four-justice majority are gone from the court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September. Justice Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018. The three dissenters in the case remain on the court.
多数派的四名大法官中已有两位已经离开了最高法院。大法官鲁斯·巴德·金斯伯格于去年9月去世。大法官安东尼·肯尼迪于2018年退休。而该案的三名异议大法官仍在任。
The Supreme Court has weighed in on college admissions several times over more than 40 years. In 1978, Justice Lewis Powell set out the rationale for taking account of race even as the court barred the use of racial quotas in admissions. In the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Powell approvingly cited Harvard as “an illuminating example” of a college that takes “race into account in achieving the educational diversity valued by the First Amendment.”
在过去的40多年里，最高法院曾多次介入大学招生问题。1978年，大法官刘易斯·鲍威尔阐述了考虑种族因素的理由，尽管最高法院禁止在招生中使用种族配额。在《加州大学董事会诉巴克》一案中，鲍威尔赞许地引用哈佛大学为“具有启导性的例子”，称其“在实现《第一修正案》所重视的教育多样性时考虑了种族因素”。
Twenty-five years later, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor likewise invoked the Harvard plan in her opinion upholding the University of Michigan’s law school admissions program.
25年后，桑德拉·戴·奥康纳法官也援引了哈佛的计划来支持密歇根的法学院招生计划。
Now Harvard becomes the target of opponents of race-based affirmative action. It is claimed that Harvard imposes a “racial penalty” on Asian American applicants by systematically scoring them lower than other applicants and awarding “massive preferences” to Black and Hispanic applicants.
现在哈佛成了种族平权法案反对者的目标。据称，哈佛对亚裔申请人施加了“种族惩罚”，系统地给亚裔申请人的评分低于其他申请人，并给予黑人和西班牙裔申请人“大量优待”。
Harvard flatly denies that it discriminates against Asian American applicants and says its consideration of race is limited. The class that just finished its freshman year is roughly one-quarter Asian American, 15% Black and 13% Hispanic, Harvard says on its website. “If Harvard were to abandon race-conscious admissions, African-American and Hispanic representation would decline by nearly half,” the school told the court in urging it to stay out of the case.
哈佛断然否认其歧视亚裔美国申请人，并表示其对种族的考虑是有限的。哈佛大学在其网站上说，刚完成大一学业的学生中，大约有四分之一是亚裔美国人，15%是黑人，13%是西班牙裔。哈佛告诉最高法院，“如果哈佛放弃考虑种族因素的招生，非裔美国人和西班牙裔美国人的学生人数将减少近一半，”并敦促其不要介入此案。
When the court upheld the Michigan’s law school program in 2003, O’Connor took note of the quarter-century that had passed since the Bakke decision. “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today,” O’Connor wrote.
当最高法院在2003年支持密歇根的法学院项目时，奥康纳注意到自巴基案判决以来已经过去了四分之一个世纪。奥康纳写道:“我们预计，从现在起的25年里，种族倾斜的使用将不再是推动今天支持的利益的必要手段。”
O’Connor’s timeline set 2028 as a potential endpoint for racial preferences. A more conservative court than the one on which she served could advance that expiration date by several years.
奥康纳的时间表将2028年定为种族倾斜的潜在终点。一个比她当时所处的更为保守的最高法院可以将这个截止时间提前几年。