Affirmative action in American college admissions may be about to end. On October 31st the Supreme Court heard two cases in which lawyers argued that the current practice—which allows universities to favour applicants of some races over others—violates civil-rights laws and the constitution. Judging by the sceptical questioning of the conservative justices, who thanks to Donald Trump now command a majority, the question is not whether such preferences will be restricted, but whether they will survive at all.

美國(guó)大學(xué)招生中的平權(quán)法可能即將結(jié)束。10月31日，最高法院審理了兩起案件，在這兩起案件中，律師們辯稱，目前允許大學(xué)優(yōu)先考慮某些種族的申請(qǐng)者的做法違反了民權(quán)法和憲法。由于唐納德?特朗普的緣故，保守派法官如今掌握了多數(shù)席位，從他們的懷疑質(zhì)疑來(lái)看，問(wèn)題不在于這些優(yōu)待是否會(huì)受到限制，而在于這些優(yōu)待是否會(huì)繼續(xù)存在下去。

For more than 40 years the court had allowed some positive discrimination. But it did so with discomfort. Too-obvious tactics like racial quotas, or awarding points for skin colour, were ruled excessive. The compromise was to consider race as one part of “holistic admissions” in a way that made its weight hard to discern. In 2003 Justice Sandra Day O’Connor declared the practice ought to be time-limited, expecting it to be unnecessary 25 years from then. If the court rules as expected in June 2023, five years ahead of Ms O’Connor’s schedule, there will be some sorrow, but hardly the same backlash as met the overturning of the right to abortion in Roe v Wade. Surveys show that majorities of African-Americans, Californians, Democrats and Hispanics all oppose the use of race in college admissions (and in other areas). The demise of this unpopular scheme offers a chance to build something better.

40多年來(lái)，法院允許了一些積極的歧視。但這樣做帶來(lái)了不適。太過(guò)明顯的策略，如種族配額，或根據(jù)膚色評(píng)分，都被裁定過(guò)分。折衷方案是將種族作為“整體評(píng)估錄取”的一部分，在某種程度上使其重要性難以辨別。2003年，桑德拉·戴·奧康納法官宣布，這種做法應(yīng)該有時(shí)間限制，預(yù)計(jì)25年后就沒(méi)有必要了。如果最高法院在2023年6月(比奧康納的時(shí)間表提前5年)做出預(yù)期的裁決，將會(huì)有些悲傷，但不會(huì)像羅伊訴韋德案中推翻墮胎權(quán)那樣受到強(qiáng)烈反對(duì)。調(diào)查顯示，大多數(shù)非裔美國(guó)人、加州人、民主黨人和西班牙裔美國(guó)人都反對(duì)在大學(xué)招生(以及其他領(lǐng)域)中考慮種族因素。這個(gè)不受歡迎的計(jì)劃的廢止提供了一個(gè)建設(shè)更好的計(jì)劃的機(jī)會(huì)。

A diversity of backgrounds in elite institutions is a desirable goal. In pursuing it, though, how much violence should be done to other liberal principles—fairness, meritocracy, the treatment of people as individuals and not avatars for their group identities? At present, the size of racial preferences is large and hard to defend. The child of two college-educated Nigerian immigrants probably has more advantages in life than the child of an Asian taxi driver or a white child born into Appalachian poverty. Such backgrounds are all diverse. But, under the current regime, the first is heavily more favoured than the others.

精英院校的多元化背景是一個(gè)理想的目標(biāo)。然而，在追求這一目標(biāo)的過(guò)程中，對(duì)其他自由主義原則，即公平、精英管理、將人們視為個(gè)體而非群體身份的化身，應(yīng)該施加多少“暴力”呢? 目前，種族偏好的規(guī)模很大，很難辯護(hù)。兩個(gè)受過(guò)大學(xué)教育的尼日利亞移民的孩子在生活中可能比一個(gè)亞洲出租車(chē)司機(jī)的孩子或一個(gè)出生在阿巴拉契亞貧困地區(qū)的白人孩子擁有更多的優(yōu)勢(shì)。這樣的背景各不相同。但是，在當(dāng)前的體制下，前者比其他兩種更受青睞。

Racial preferences are not, however, the most galling thing about the ultra-selective universities that anoint America’s elite. The legal case against Harvard, one of the universities defending itself before the Supreme Court, has prised open its admissions records to show the scale of unjustified advantage showered upon the already privileged—disproportionately those who are white and wealthy. A startling 43% of white students admitted to Harvard enjoy some kind of non-academic admissions preference: being an athlete, the child of an alumnus, or a member of the dean’s list of special applicants (such as the offspring of powerful people or big donors).

【1】galling 令人惱怒的; 令人感到屈辱的

然而，種族偏好并不是培養(yǎng)美國(guó)精英的超級(jí)名校最令人惱火的地方。哈佛大學(xué)是在最高法院為自己辯護(hù)的大學(xué)之一，針對(duì)它的法律案件公布了它的錄取記錄，以顯示已經(jīng)享有特權(quán)的人(尤其是那些白人和富人)獲得的不合理優(yōu)勢(shì)的規(guī)模。令人吃驚的是，哈佛大學(xué)錄取的白人學(xué)生中有43% 的人享有某種非學(xué)術(shù)性的錄取偏好: 作為一名運(yùn)動(dòng)員，校友的孩子，或者院長(zhǎng)特殊申請(qǐng)者名單中的一員(比如有權(quán)勢(shì)的人或大捐贈(zèng)者的后代)。

A cynic could argue that racial balancing works as a virtue-signalling veneer atop a grotesquely unfair system. A study published in 2017 found that most of Harvard’s undergraduates hailed from families in the top 10% of the income distribution. Princeton had more students from the top 1% than the bottom 60%. When this is the case, it seems unfair that it is often minority students—not the trust-funders—who have their credentials questioned. University presidents and administrators who preen about all their diverse classes might look at how Britain—a country of kings, queens, knights and lords—has fostered a university system that is less riven with ancestral privilege.

憤世嫉俗的人可能會(huì)說(shuō)，種族平衡是在一個(gè)極其不公平的制度上的一種美德標(biāo)榜虛飾。2017年發(fā)表的一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，哈佛大學(xué)的大多數(shù)本科生來(lái)自收入分配排名前10%的家庭。普林斯頓大學(xué)的前1%學(xué)生比后60%的學(xué)生多。在這種情況下，受到質(zhì)疑的往往是少數(shù)族裔學(xué)生而不是信托基金的資助者，這似乎是不公平的。那些吹噓其階層多元化的大學(xué)校長(zhǎng)和管理人員，或許可以看看英國(guó)這個(gè)由國(guó)王、女王、騎士和勛爵組成的國(guó)家是如何培養(yǎng)出一種不那么受到祖先特權(quán)影響的大學(xué)體系的。

Unfairness in American education will not be fixed by one court ruling. But it will shock a system in need of reform. Legacy admissions should be ended. Colleges claiming that alumni donations would wither without them should look to Caltech, mit and Johns Hopkins—premier institutions that ditched the practice and, as The Economist went to press, still seemed reputable and solvent. Blunt racial preferences will probably need to be replaced in response to the Supreme Court. But a less socially divisive system based on income could take their place. That would do a better job of taking actual disadvantage into account. It would still benefit non-white and non-Asian Americans, because they are more likely to be poorer, but would do so in a racially neutral way.

美國(guó)教育的不公平不是一個(gè)法院裁決就能解決的。但這將沖擊一個(gè)需要改革的體系?！皞鞒小变浫?yīng)該被終止。那些聲稱沒(méi)有校友捐款就會(huì)衰落的大學(xué)，應(yīng)該看看加州理工學(xué)院、麻省理工學(xué)院和約翰霍普金斯大學(xué)的做法。這些一流的大學(xué)拋棄了這種做法，直到《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人》付印時(shí)，它們?nèi)匀宦曌u(yù)良好，有償付能力。作為對(duì)最高法院的回應(yīng)，直截了當(dāng)?shù)姆N族偏好可能需要被取代。但一種基于收入的社會(huì)分歧較小的制度可能會(huì)取代它們。這樣做會(huì)更好地考慮到實(shí)際的不利因素。它仍然會(huì)讓非白人和非亞裔美國(guó)人受益，因?yàn)樗麄兏锌赡芨F，但會(huì)以一種種族中立的方式來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)。

In some ways, the question of who gets into a handful of elite universities is a distraction from the deeper causes of social immobility in America. Schooling in poorer neighbourhoods was dismal even before covid-19. The long school closures demanded by teachers’ unions wiped out two decades of progress in test scores for nine-year-olds, with hard-up, black and Hispanic children worst affected. Efforts to help the needy should start before birth and be sustained throughout childhood. Nothing the Supreme Court says about the consideration of race in college admissions will affect the more basic problem, that too few Americans from poorer families are sufficiently prepared to apply to college. However the court rules, that is a debate America needs to have.

在某種程度上，誰(shuí)能進(jìn)入少數(shù)精英大學(xué)的問(wèn)題分散了人們對(duì)美國(guó)社會(huì)不流動(dòng)的深層原因的注意力。即使在新冠肺炎疫情之前，較貧困社區(qū)的教育狀況也很糟糕。教師工會(huì)要求的長(zhǎng)期關(guān)閉學(xué)校，抹掉了9歲兒童20年來(lái)在考試成績(jī)方面取得的進(jìn)步，其中貧困的黑人和西班牙裔兒童受到的影響最為嚴(yán)重。幫助窮人的努力應(yīng)該從出生前開(kāi)始，并在整個(gè)兒童時(shí)期持續(xù)下去。最高法院關(guān)于大學(xué)招生中考慮種族因素的任何說(shuō)法都不會(huì)影響更基本的問(wèn)題，即極少有來(lái)自貧困家庭的美國(guó)人做好了充分的準(zhǔn)備申請(qǐng)大學(xué)。無(wú)論法院如何裁決，這都是美國(guó)需要進(jìn)行的辯論。