Fisher 4:3判决一出，社区哗然，文章不少。这次判决是说德州大学（UT）这样以多元化为由的narrow application of race 可以接受（而种族限额quota依然违法）。支持UT的四位在人数上占优势（三位民主党，第四位Kennedy是摇摆票，这次转到此方），而原本支持Fisher的Scalia去世，否则会至少4:4，不会形成先例法。此文在于介绍反对此判决的三位大法官（共和党，还有一位非裔）的观点。

 

 

以Alito主笔的五十多页反对意见书多次引用了我们教育联盟带动的amicus brief，直截了当说race conscious policies discriminate against Asian Americans. 可悲的是华人中很多都不承认歧视的存在。一位大法官能写出这样的dissent 是我们两年来争取权益的声音被最高法院听到了。请见我们亚裔教育联盟的链接，“2015年9月10日, 亚裔教育联盟（AACE）代表了117个华裔、印度裔、巴基斯坦裔、韩裔、越南和其他亚裔社团和教育机构，联合亚裔法律基金会（AALF）向美国最高法院提交了一份非当事人法庭陈述(amicus brief)，敦促最高法院全面禁止在大学录取中的种族歧视行为。这份文件的提交是为了支持原告阿比盖尔•费舍尔（Fisher）在“费舍尔对得克萨斯州大学”的诉讼。” 

http://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/support-fisher-case/

 

【教育联盟对Fisher案判决的意见--中文版 http://asianamericanforeducation.org/zh/pr_20160623_zh/

英文版 http://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/pr_20160623/ 】

 

Alito对majority提出严厉批评（见附图中第25页），说也许多数派知道种族录取政策歧视亚裔，但因为亚裔太多，觉得这种歧视没啥坏处，意即“unequal but benign”。He also said the court's decision places the court onto the tortuous path of choosing which race to favor! 确实，这个判决给了学校freedom to pick which race and ethinity to favor. 

 

【意见书结尾处点出问题的实质】

“It is important to understand what is and what is not at stake in this case. What is not at stake is whether UT or any other university may adopt an admissions plan that results in a student body with a broad representation of students from all racial and ethnic groups. UT previously had a race-neutral plan that it claimed had “effectively compensated for the loss of affirmative action,” and UT could have taken other steps that would have increased the diversity of its admitted students without taking race into account.

What is at stake is whether university administrators may justify systematic racial discrimination simply by asserting that such discrimination is necessary to achieve “the educational benefits of diversity,” without explaining—much less proving—why the discrimination is needed or how the discriminatory plan is well crafted to serve its objectives. Even though UT has never provided any coherent explanation for its asserted need to discriminate on the basis of race, and even though UT’s position relies on a series of unsupported and noxious racial assumptions, the majority concludes that UT has met its heavy burden. This conclusion is remarkable—and remarkably wrong.” 

网上Twitter用户给Fisher起了各种名头，比如 “mediocre Abby, stay mad Abby”等等，可见要站出来需要多少勇气。在指出Fisher成绩不够高也许是没被录取的原因同时，大家应该清醒意识到这个ruling对成绩高又全面发展的亚裔的长远影响。如果Fisher真是仅仅因为成绩问题，那么多数派为何需要那么苦心地argue on the point of diversity 呢？现在学校可以堂而皇之选择他们favor的族群了， all in the name of diversity. 是否可以为了所谓的多元化而歧视哪个族裔才是Alito指出的根本问题。

 

而歧视对青少年和族群的影响远远不能说成benign，但Alito的声音应该是目前为止最有力的了吧。我们应该大量转发给身边的朋友们，使只顾埋头拉车的家长们听到三位大法官的 dissent，使一味要求自己孩子或一味反思我们哪里做错（单一，没领导力，不捐款，无社区服务等等这些借口）的家长们抬起头来，从增加对孩子的自信开始，到发出自己的声音。没有对族群的自信，是很难发出有底气的声音的。Alito并且引用德州大学的数据证明对亚裔的歧视，这远非那些借口可以解释的。他指出“亚裔”一词本身就包括了各族裔。用政治正确的“行话”说，这难道不是“多元化”吗？

 

虽然Scalia过世损失惨重，但既然有了大法官Alito的声音，就不要让它消失，请多转转，多发现支持我们的朋友。痛心之余要像Swan Lee女士引用的郝思嘉“明天又是新的一天！” 那样前行。Scarlet O'hara的gumption是我们应该效仿的。昨天教育联盟群里看到我写给我们学区的信，有群友说我是斗士，其实我们联盟从主席赵宇空，副主席欧阳了寒，秘书蔡挺，到成员张国栋，Henry Yang，Swan Lee，Lee Cheng（华人二代律师）等等都是斗士，多位义工、签名的组织以及联盟群、实践群友更是，从申诉、意见书、签名、财务支持到转发文章，出谋划策，团结协作。看看一些青年人还没有孩子都已经加入我们的行列。那么大家互相扶持，集思广益，至少先把三位大法官的声音传到华人中间，以及主流媒体。可悲的是除了右派媒体Breitbart，主流媒体没有引用这样的意见书，反而连篇报道Twitter上对Fisher的讽刺。

 

另外，去年我们申诉哈佛时跟踪了主流媒体报道，多数还是较中肯的，一些刻意扭曲的媒体是有agenda的，就跟OCA刚刚发的支持这个判决一样，他们不会open their eyes. 

 

比较下80-20 SB Woo和美华协会的信，很耐人寻味。OCA加入了支持UT一方的Amicus brief。

 

FROM 80-20

   Supreme Court Justice J. Alito, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice 

Thomas joined, dissented by stating (pp 22-27):

 

    "... But UT's plan discriminates against Asian American students ...

including racial discrimination that undeniably harms Asian Ams ... the court's

willingness to allow this "discrimination against individuals of Asian descent is

particularly troubling, in light of the long history of discrimination against 

Asian Americans, especially in education ... In particular, the Fifth Circuit's 

willful blindness to Asian-American students is absolutely shameless."

 

    Listen!  Even our Supreme Court Justices clearly described the treatment 

of AsAm students as DISCRIMINATION.  Why didn't the other Justices see it? 

My conjecture is that they saw it too, but chose to focus on the diversity issue  

& give Asian Americans the "willful blindness." 

 

     Our responsibility to our future generations is to force the other 

Justices to come out of their "willful blindness."  That'll take another lawsuit.

 

FROM OCA

"We are pleased with this ruling by the Supreme Court," said Leslie Moe-Kaiser, OCA National President. "Affirmative action and race-conscious admissions are two of the most important tools to help maintain the requisite level of diversity in colleges around the country. In our rapidly diversifying society, our children are better served by attending school with a diverse set of peers; so that while they build their formal skills, the growth of their cultural intelligence is not simultaneously stunted. Additionally, many influential leaders of today are the direct result of positive affirmative action policies in education, including many Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Without these policies, we can expect to see less diversity at the upper echelons of government and society. Yesterday's ruling is more than just a question of admissions policies; it is a decision between an America that values fairness and diversity, and one that is concerned with preserving the monolithically white power structures."

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/23/supreme-court-upholds-racial-preferences-scathing-conservative-dissents/

 

Justice Thomas wrote a short dissent in addition to the main dissent, to emphasize:

I write separately to reaffirm that a State’s use of race in higher education admissions decisions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause. The Constitution abhors classifications based on race because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all. That constitutional imperative does not change in the face of a faddish theory that racial discrimination may produce educational benefits. The Court was wrong to hold otherwise in Grutter v. Bollinger. I would overrule Grutterand reverse the Fifth Circuit’s judgment. (citations and editing marks omitted)