原文標(biāo)題：
Universities
New testaments
Mandatory diversity statements are taking hold of academia
大學(xué)
新約
學(xué)術(shù)界正在強(qiáng)制要求多樣性聲明

American universities are hiring based on devotion to diversity
美國(guó)大學(xué)的招聘要求多樣性方面的貢獻(xiàn)

[Paragraph 8]
The dark side黑暗面

Whether such a process privileges candidates of certain ethnic backgrounds over others is a sensitive question with legal implications.
這種篩選程序是否優(yōu)先考慮某些族裔背景的候選人，這是一個(gè)具有法律影響的敏感問(wèn)題。

“It doesn’t appear that there’s any kind of correlation between particular identities and the quality of statements,” says Karie Frasch, the director of Berkeley’s Office of Faculty Equity and Welfare.
伯克利教師公平與福利辦公室主任卡里·弗雷什稱：“特定身份和聲明質(zhì)量之間似乎沒(méi)有任何關(guān)聯(lián)?！?br>

When asked to clarify whether that meant scores did not differ by race, Dr Frasch says, “I’m not saying that. We don’t have that information. I shouldn’t have said the word ‘correlation’. I apologise.”

當(dāng)被問(wèn)及這是否意味著分?jǐn)?shù)不因種族而異時(shí)，弗雷什博士說(shuō)，“我可沒(méi)這么說(shuō)，我們沒(méi)有相關(guān)信息，道歉，我不應(yīng)該說(shuō)‘相關(guān)性’這個(gè)詞?！?br>

[Paragraph 9]
Berkeley is an important case study, not necessarily because it is the most extreme but because it is the most transparent.

伯克利是一個(gè)重要的案例研究，未必是因?yàn)樗顦O端，而是因?yàn)樗@個(gè)案例最透明。

The University of California, Los Angeles has embraced diversity statements in hiring and tenure decisions even more fervently, but does not feel the need to explain its policies.
加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校在招聘和任期決定中更熱衷多樣性聲明，但學(xué)校認(rèn)為不必對(duì)政策作解釋。

A spokesperson said that Anna Spain Bradley, a law professor who serves as vice-chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion, was unavailable for comment.
一位發(fā)言人表示，負(fù)責(zé)公平性、多樣性和包容性的副校長(zhǎng)兼法學(xué)教授安娜·西班尼·布拉德利不予置評(píng)。

[Paragraph 10]
Critics worry about the proliferation of diversity criteria in science.批評(píng)者擔(dān)心多樣性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)會(huì)在科學(xué)界泛濫。

Beginning this fiscal year, the Department of Energy, which funds research on nuclear and plasma physics among other things, will require all grant applications to submit plans on “promoting inclusive and equitable research”.
從本財(cái)年度開(kāi)始，資助核物理和等離子體物理等研究項(xiàng)目的能源部提出新要求，即所有資助申請(qǐng)項(xiàng)目都將需要提交“促進(jìn)包容性和公平性研究”的計(jì)劃。

Since 2021 the BRAIN Initiative at the National Institutes of Health has required prospective grantees to file a “plan for enhancing diverse perspectives”. Teams with investigators from diverse backgrounds receive precedence.
從2021開(kāi)始，美國(guó)國(guó)立衛(wèi)生研究院的“大腦計(jì)劃”要求未來(lái)的受資助者提交一份“增強(qiáng)多樣性的計(jì)劃”。優(yōu)先考慮背景多樣性的團(tuán)隊(duì)。

[Paragraph 11]
“People are unwilling to push back because they are afraid to lose their funding, and no one wants to become a martyr for defending reason,” says Anna Krylov, a professor of chemistry at the University of Southern California.
南加州大學(xué)化學(xué)教授安娜·克里洛夫說(shuō)：“人們不愿抵制，因?yàn)樗麄兒ε率ソ?jīng)費(fèi)，沒(méi)有人愿意當(dāng)炮灰?！?br>
Professor Krylov studied in the former Soviet Union and sees parallels that are “a little too close”. Rather than Marxism-Leninism, “you really have to pledge your commitment to critical social justice.”
克里洛夫教授曾在前蘇聯(lián)學(xué)習(xí)過(guò)，她看到了“很近”的相似事情。你不僅要宣誓效忠馬～列主義，“你還在重要的社會(huì)正義方面做出貢獻(xiàn)?！?br>
[Paragraph 12]
If race-based affirmative action for college admissions is struck down by the Supreme Court, as most expect it will be this year, universities will surely resort to creative means of maintaining diversity that can survive judicial scrutiny.
如果“種族優(yōu)先”的大學(xué)錄取平權(quán)行動(dòng)被最高法院終止，那么今年大學(xué)肯定會(huì)采取新措施來(lái)保持“多樣性”，以避免司法審查。

Diversity statements may prove useful. The subtlety can vary.多樣性聲明可能是有用的。細(xì)節(jié)會(huì)有所不同。

The Harvard Law Review strongly encourages prospective editors to submit, alongside their application, a 200-word statement “to identify and describe aspects of your identity…including, but not limited to, racial or ethnic identity, socioeconomic background, disability (physical, intellectual, cognitive/neurological, psychiatric, sensory, developmental, or other), gender identity…” (the list goes on).
《哈佛法律評(píng)論》強(qiáng)烈鼓勵(lì)未來(lái)編輯在提交求職申請(qǐng)時(shí)，也提交一份200字的聲明“確認(rèn)并描述你的身份……包括但不限于種族或族裔身份、社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)背景、殘疾（身體、智力、認(rèn)知/神經(jīng)、精神、感官、發(fā)育或其他）、性別認(rèn)同……”（等等）。

[Paragraph 13]
In many Republican-led states legislators are trying to forcibly eradicate this strain of thinking—sometimes in ways that seek to limit freedom of thought in the name of protecting it.在許多共和黨主導(dǎo)的州，立法者正試圖強(qiáng)行消除這種思維方式——有時(shí)以保護(hù)的名義來(lái)限制思想自由。

Last year Republicans in Florida passed the Stop WOKE Act, which prohibits instruction at universities on ideas like systemic racism unless provided in “an objective manner without endorsement”.
去年，佛羅里達(dá)州的共和黨人通過(guò)了《停止覺(jué)醒法案》，該法案禁止在大學(xué)里系統(tǒng)性教授種族主義等思想，除非以“客觀的方式呈現(xiàn)，而不帶個(gè)人觀點(diǎn)”。
In 2021 those in Idaho passed a law banning the teaching of critical race theory in all schools, including public universities.
2021，愛(ài)達(dá)荷州通過(guò)了一項(xiàng)法律，禁止在所有學(xué)校（包括公立大學(xué)）教授批判種族理論。

Last month the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, released a piece of model legislation for states to emulate that would do less violence to the First Amendment, by dismantling DEI offices in universities and banning consideration of diversity statements in hiring.
上個(gè)月，保守派智庫(kù)曼哈頓研究所發(fā)布了一項(xiàng)公示法案，這將減少《第一修正案》被利用的情況，可供各州效仿。具體方法有拆掉大學(xué)里的DEI辦公室，禁止在招聘中要求多樣性聲明。

[Paragraph 14]
Others are more sanguine. “I think it’s a fad,” says Janet Halley, a professor of law at Harvard. Bureaucratising ideology saps sincerity.
其他人則更加樂(lè)觀。哈佛大學(xué)法學(xué)教授珍妮特·哈雷說(shuō)：“我認(rèn)為這只是一時(shí)狂熱?！币?yàn)楣倭胖髁x的意識(shí)形態(tài)侵蝕了誠(chéng)意。

“People will utter the hocus-pocus. They know that they’re being required to put on an act. And that’s going to create cynicism about the very values that the people who put these requirements into place care about,” she says.
她說(shuō)：“人們會(huì)說(shuō)一些假話，他們知道這是在表演。大家會(huì)對(duì)那些提出這些要求的人所關(guān)心的價(jià)值觀產(chǎn)生懷疑?！?br>
If those contradictions don’t sink the project, the courts might.如果這些矛盾沒(méi)有令這些多樣性要求消失，法院也可能會(huì)令它們消失。

Professor Halley believes these innovations are “forced speech and viewpoint discrimination in the First Amendment context” and will lead DEI dissidents to file lawsuits. “With the increasing conservatism of the federal bench, I think they’re likely to win.”
哈雷教授認(rèn)為，這些新要求是“《第一修正案》背景下的強(qiáng)制言論和觀點(diǎn)歧視”，這將令DEI的反對(duì)者提起訴訟?！坝捎诼?lián)邦保守派法官越來(lái)越多，我認(rèn)為他們很可能獲勝。”

（恭喜讀完，本篇英語(yǔ)詞匯量624/1269左右）
原文出自：2023年2月11日《The Economist》United States版塊。

精讀筆記來(lái)源于：自由英語(yǔ)之路

本文翻譯整理: Irene本文編輯校對(duì): Irene
僅供個(gè)人英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)交流使用。

【補(bǔ)充資料】（來(lái)自于網(wǎng)絡(luò)）
進(jìn)入21世紀(jì)后許多州和學(xué)校開(kāi)始在臺(tái)面上取消或減少所謂“平權(quán)”。如加州大學(xué)早在1995年就率先公開(kāi)終止“平權(quán)”，麻省理工學(xué)院、北卡州立大學(xué)等也起而效仿。1996年，加州209號(hào)法案明確提出“不得以種族因素為大學(xué)錄取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之一”，這一提法此后為多個(gè)州所效仿，一定程度上抵消了“平權(quán)法案”所造成的錄取不公。但這種“反彈”效果是有限的、微弱的：美國(guó)聯(lián)邦最高法院已不止一次公開(kāi)表示，“平權(quán)法案”是合理的、有效的、公平的，而針對(duì)這種“實(shí)質(zhì)上的不公平”進(jìn)行的多次法律訴訟挑戰(zhàn)（多數(shù)是自感遭受不公的美國(guó)白人發(fā)起的），也大多不了了之。

2022年，佛羅里達(dá)州立法機(jī)構(gòu)通過(guò)了支持者所稱的“停止覺(jué)醒法案”(Stop WOKE Act)，該法案旨在限制該州的工作場(chǎng)所和教室如何處理有關(guān)批判性種族理論的討論。這個(gè)法案不是為了黑人，也不是為了任何其他種族。立場(chǎng)是反對(duì)國(guó)家批準(zhǔn)的種族主義，這是關(guān)鍵的種族理論。不允許佛羅里達(dá)州納稅人的錢(qián)花在教育孩子們仇恨我們的國(guó)家或互相仇恨上。州政府也有責(zé)任確保父母在執(zhí)行國(guó)家標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時(shí)有維護(hù)自己權(quán)利的手段。

?
【重點(diǎn)句子】（3?個(gè)）Critics worry about the proliferation of diversity criteria in science.
批評(píng)者擔(dān)心多樣性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)會(huì)在科學(xué)界泛濫。

Diversity statements may prove useful. The subtlety can vary.
多樣性聲明可能是有用的。細(xì)節(jié)會(huì)有所不同。

If those contradictions don’t sink the project, the courts might.
如果這些矛盾沒(méi)有令這些多樣性要求消失，法院也可能會(huì)令它們消失。