#耶魯歧視白人及亞裔 這宗可能是近年最有影響的教育公平判決，打兩年官司美國司法部終於有結果了：耶魯涉歧視白人及亞裔美國人。
申訴稱，耶魯大學的白人及亞裔入學招收標準要高於其它種族，這些大學還使用了非法的配額制度來限制白人及亞裔美國學生的數量，優惠非裔及拉丁裔等民族。過去配額制是用於鼓勵多元族裔收生，讓更多少數族裔可以以較低分數入Ivy league。
雖然美司法部判未有明言其他院校的配額制、降低門檻等做法是不合法，但看來司法部有意限制這些措施的濫用，以防歧視白人及亞裔。耶魯實踐這些措施時，應該是無限制地，多層強化了種族因素。判斷認為這些措施必須乎合以下原則：
👉要求大學僅以“靈活，非機械的方式”將種族作為“加”因素。 Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 334 (2003）
👉種族不能是“決定性的實踐”。 Gratz, 539 U.S. at 272 & n.19; accord Grutter, 539 U.S. at 337.
👉換句話說，種族不能成為申請的“定義特徵”或決定申請人是否被錄取的“主要因素”。 Grutter, 539 U.S. at 317, 320, 337.
👉此外，根據《平等保護條款》330條，“種族平衡”是“明顯違憲的”。 因此也違反了《民權法》第六章。
👉招生計劃不能“給不屬於偏愛的種族和族裔成員的個人造成不必要的負擔”。 最後，大學的“種族入學政策必須及時加以限制”。
判決認為
「對於絕大多數申請人而言，亞裔美國人和白人只有具有相同學術能力的非裔美國人申請錄取可能性的十分之一至四分之一。 耶魯大學每年都會根據種族來拒絕數十名亞裔和白人申請人。
儘管最高法院裁定，接受聯邦資助的大學可以會在某些有限的情況下將申請人的種族視為眾多收生因素之一，但司法部發現耶魯大學對種族因素的使用絕非限制性。 耶魯大學在錄取過程的多個步驟中都考慮到申請人的種族，這導致種族因素對申請人影響倍增，讓耶魯在種族上平衡。」
//For the great majority of applicants, Asian Americans and whites have only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African American applicants with comparable academic credentials. Yale rejects scores of Asian American and white applicants each year based on their race, whom it otherwise would admit.
Although the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds may consider applicants’ race in certain limited circumstances as one of a number of factors, the Department of Justice found Yale’s use of race is anything but limited. Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission, and Yale racially balances its classes.//
//Narrow tailoring requires, among other things, that a university use race only as a “plus” factor “in a flexible, nonmechanical way.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 334 (2003). Race cannot be “decisive in practice.” Gratz, 539 U.S. at 272 & n.19; accord Grutter, 539 U.S. at 337. In other words, narrow tailoring requires that race cannot be “the defining feature” of the application or “the predominant factor” that decides an applicant’s admission. Grutter, 539 U.S. at 317, 320, 337. Additionally, “racial balancing” is “patently unconstitutional” under the Equal Protection Clause, id. at 330, and thus also violates Title VI. In addition, an admissions program cannot “unduly burden individuals who are not members of the favored racial and ethnic groups.” Id. at 341 (citation omitted). Finally, a university’s “race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time.” Id. at 342.//
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-finds-yale-illegally-discriminates-against-asians-and-whites-undergraduate
