(相关资料图)

原文标题：University admissionsAffirmative action had to goBut what comes after could be better大学招生平权行动必须取消取消之后会更好Why affirmative action in American universities had to go为什么美国大学的平权行动必须取消[Paragraph 1]SHOULD CITIZENS be treated differently based on the colour of their skin? 公民是否应该因肤色不同而受到不同待遇？Most people would say not, but others insist that they should—if the ends are sufficiently enlightened.大多数人会说不应该，但另一些人坚持认为应该——只要目的足够开明，就应该如此。

[Paragraph 2]Not long after America dismantledover two centuries of slavery and segregation, it embarked on a project of “affirmative action”: legally sanctioned positive discrimination for African-Americans (later expanded to other “under-represented minorities”) who wanted to go to selective universities.美国废除了200多年的奴隶制和种族隔离政策后不久，就开始了一项“平权行动”计划：对那些想上选拔性大学的非裔美国人（后来扩大到其他“代表性不足的少数族裔”）实行法律认可的积极歧视。Yet after 50 years with more racial progress than setbacks, an applicant to America’s top universities with the right skin colour still has a much better chance of getting in than one with identical credentials but the wrong skin colour. 50 年来，种族进步多于退步。然而，对于一个肤色对的申请人来说，进入美国顶尖大学的机会要比具有相同资历但肤色不对的申请人要高得多。On June 29th the Supreme Court ended the scheme. 6 月 29 日，最高法院终止了该计划。[Paragraph 3]It was right to do so. 终止计划是对的。That is because affirmative action rested on contortedconstitutional logic. It was also unpopular outside progressive circles. Worst of all, it didn’t work. 这是因为平权行动建立在扭曲的宪法逻辑之上。而且在进步派圈子之外也不受欢迎。最糟糕的是，它并没有起到作用。America’s best universities have never been representative, even with race-based affirmative action. 即使有了基于种族的平权行动，美国最好的大学也从未真正代表多元性。The very same universities favour the children of alumni and donors—a shadow, unjustifiableaffirmative-action scheme for the white and wealthy hidden behind the prominent one for black and Hispanic applicants (many of whom were wealthy themselves). 同样的大学偏袒校友和捐助者的子女——实际上这是一个为白人和富人而设立的不公平的影子平权行动计划，虽然表面上是为黑人和西班牙裔申请者（其中许多人本身就很富有）设立的公开计划。[Paragraph 4]The Supreme Court’s ruling will reverberatewidely, encouraging lawsuits to end racial preferences in other areas. 最高法院的裁决将引起广泛影响，也将鼓励其他领域结束种族偏好的诉讼。But the immediate impact will be on universities, and the task is to ensure that it is beneficial.但直接影响将在大学里体现出来，大家的任务是确保其产生积极影响。[Paragraph 5]Start with the shaky legal justification for race-conscious admissions. 基于种族的招生制度，要从不可靠的法律依据开始说起。That is why, in 1978, the Supreme Court justified affirmative action not asreparationsfor a terrible past, but with the argument that diversity promotes “cross-racial understanding and the breaking down of racial stereotypes”. 这就是为什么1978年，最高法院将平权行动的合理化不作为对灰暗过去的赔偿，而是以多样性促进“跨种族理解和打破种族成见”的理由来进行合理化。[Paragraph 6]It was always odd that affirmative action was crafted for the benefit of black students’ white peers. 平权行动是为了黑人学生的白人同伴的利益而制定的，这一点很奇怪。Nonetheless, top universities leapt onthe rationale of diversity.尽管如此，顶尖大学还是采用了多样性的合理化理由。[Paragraph 7]In last week’s decision the court’s dissenting liberal justices claimed that the new ban “will serve only to highlight the court’s own impotencein the face of an America whose cries for equality resound”. 在上周的判决中，法院中持不同意见的自由派法官声称，新禁令 "只会突出法院自己在面对美国的平等呼声时的无能"。In fact Americans were not happy with the old policy. Even liberal Californians voted down a proposal in 2020 to reinstate affirmative action, banned in the state since 1996. 事实上，美国人对旧政策并不满意。就连自由派加州人也在 2020 年投票否决了一项恢复平权行动的提案，1996 年加州就禁止了平权行动。Polls show that many more Americans oppose taking race into account for admissions than favour it. 民意调查显示，反对将种族纳入招生条件的美国人要远多于支持者。That is also true of Asian-Americans, who typically lean left but bear the heaviest cost of race-based admissions because they are deemed to be “over-represented” (despite suffering discrimination in their own right).亚裔美国人也反对，尽管他们通常倾向于左派，但在基于种族的招生中承受着最沉重的代价，因为他们被认为“代表比例过高”（尽管他们本身就遭受歧视）。[Paragraph 8]The court’s decision could yet become the catalystfor fairer admissions. 法院的判决可能会成为推动更公平录取的催化剂。The extraordinary benefits that Harvard and Yale shower upon the children of alumni and donors make a mockeryof meritocracy and progressivism. 哈佛和耶鲁大学对校友和捐赠者子女给予的特殊待遇是对精英主义和进步主义的讽刺。Those practices, the subject of a new legal challenge, should go. 这些做法成了新的法律挑战，应该取消。[Paragraph 9]Universities seeking social justice should stop using race as a proxy for disadvantage and start looking at the thing itself. 追求社会公正的大学应该停止将种族作为弱势群体的代名词，而应该直接关注弱势群体本身。Instead of giving a leg-up to members of groups that are on average badly off, they should favour individuals who are poor. 他们应该优先考虑贫困个体，而不是优先考虑平均处境较差的群体。One trial found that simply offering application-fee waivers to promising students from poor backgrounds dramatically increased the chance of them ending up in highly selective universities.一项试验发现，只要为有潜力但家庭贫困的学生提供申请费减免，就可以大大增加他们进入高选拔性大学的机会。[Paragraph 10]The best universities may seekstealthyways to preserve racial preferences. 顶尖大学可能会采取隐蔽的方式来保留种族偏好。Many are dropping requirements for standardised tests, which would make it harder to detect quiet discrimination against members of unfavoured groups who shine in them. 许多大学正在取消标准化考试成绩的要求，这对擅长考试的群体成员不利，也将使得对该群体的潜在歧视更难以察觉。[Paragraph 11]Rather than coaxinga generation of minority students into drafting disingenuousadversity statements—and continuing to admit a vast hereditary mediocracy through the back door—universities like Harvard would do well to craft a fairer system of admissions. 与其哄骗少数族裔学生写虚假的逆境声明--并继续通过后门录取大量世袭的平庸之辈--哈佛等大学应该朝着更公平的招生系统努力。They should not seek to protect the monied (albeit multicoloured) monoculture that they have created. 他们不应该试图保护他们所创造的金钱（尽管肤色多样）单一文化。Instead they should take the chance to become the genuinely representative institutions that they claim to be. 相反，他们应该抓住机会成为他们所宣扬的真正多样性机构。（恭喜读完，本篇英语词汇量837左右，有删减）原文出自：2023年7月8日《The Economist》Leaders版块

精读笔记来源于：自由英语之路

本文翻译整理: Irene

本文编辑校对: Irene仅供个人英语学习交流使用。

【补充资料】（来自于网络）美国大学的平权运动affirmative action是指20世纪60年代至70年代期间，美国社会对于大学录取和教育机会的平等访问权的争取和改革运动。平权运动促使大学采取积极的措施来增加来自少数族裔和女性的入学率。这些措施包括针对少数族裔和女性的奖学金、招生辅导和专门的招生计划。每年，越来越多的弱势群体进入大学，并取得了他们应得的成功。这些人包括不同种族、性别和性取向的人，以及残疾人士等。进入21世纪后许多州和学校开始在台面上取消或减少所谓“平权”。如加州大学早在1995年就率先公开终止“平权”，麻省理工学院、北卡州立大学等也起而效仿。1996年，加州209号法案明确提出“不得以种族因素为大学录取标准之一”，这一提法此后为多个州所效仿，一定程度上抵消了“平权法案”所造成的录取不公。高度选拔性大学highly selective universities是指拥有非常严格的入学标准和高度竞争的录取过程的大学。这些大学通常拥有世界一流的学术声誉和资源，并吸引来自全球各地的顶尖学生竞争入学。高度选拔性大学的录取过程通常包括多个方面的评估，如学术成绩、标准化考试成绩、课外活动、领导能力、推荐信和申请文书等。申请者需要在各个方面展示出卓越的能力和潜力，以脱颖而出并被录取。申请者通常需要具备极高的学术成绩和综合素质，以及在学术、艺术、体育或社区服务等方面的杰出表现。【重点句子】（3个）The Supreme Court’s ruling will reverberate widely, encouraging lawsuits to end racial preferences in other areas. 最高法院的裁决将引起广泛影响，也将鼓励其他领域结束种族偏好的诉讼。The court’s decision could yet become the catalyst for fairer admissions. 法院的判决可能会成为推动更公平录取的催化剂。Universities seeking social justice should stop using race as a proxy for disadvantage and start looking at the thing itself. 追求社会公正的大学应该停止将种族作为弱势群体的代名词，而应该直接关注弱势群体本身。