哈佛大学的平权行动政策是否损害了亚裔美国申请者的利益？该校最新公布的录取数据显示，亚裔美国学生的比例达到历史新高，而黑人学生入学比例已连续三年下降。与此同时，自美国最高法院2023年裁决废除种族感知录取政策以来，西班牙裔学生的比例总体呈下降趋势。
Did Harvard's affirmative action policies disadvantage Asian-American applicants? The university's latest admission figures show Asian-American representation at a record high, while Black student enrolment has fallen for three consecutive years. Meanwhile, Hispanic student representation has declined overall since the US Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions in 2023.
美国最高法院废除大学招生中的平权行动三年后，哈佛大学新生班级中亚裔美国学生的比例达到历史新高。与此同时，黑人学生比例已连续三年下降，而西班牙裔或拉丁裔学生比例在裁决后虽曾短暂上升，但总体呈下降趋势。这揭示了哈佛大学的平权行动如何违背了择优原则并损害了亚裔美国人的利益。
Three years after the US Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in university admissions, Asian-American representation in Harvard's incoming class has reached a record high. Meanwhile, Black student representation has declined for three consecutive years, while Hispanic or Latino representation has fallen overall since the ruling, following an initial increase. This reveals how Harvard's affirmative action went against merit and Asian-Americans.
根据哈佛大学发布的数据，亚裔美国学生占2030届新生班级的43.2%，该届新生共1648人，从55104名申请者中录取。黑人或非裔美国学生占该班级的9.3%，美洲原住民、夏威夷原住民或其他太平洋岛民学生占2%。
According to data released by Harvard University, Asian-American students accounted for 43.2% of the incoming Class of 2030, which enrolled 1,648 students from a pool of 55,104 applicants. Black or African-American students accounted for 9.3% of the class, while Native American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander students made up 2%.
哈佛大学的种族和族裔数据涵盖选择申报种族或族裔的美国公民和永久居民。学生可选择多个类别，因此可能被计入多个群体。
Harvard's racial and ethnic data cover US citizens and permanent residents who chose to report their race or ethnicity. Students may select more than one category and can therefore be counted in multiple groups.
据《哈佛杂志》引用的该校招生记录分析数据，1980年亚裔美国学生仅占录取学生的3.4%。
According to data cited in Harvard Magazine's analysis of the university's admissions records, Asian-Americans accounted for 3.4% of students admitted in 1980.
这一比例上升至2014年的峰值22.5%，2019年为20.6%。在2027届新生中——即美国最高法院于2023年6月废除种族感知录取政策前录取的最后一届——亚裔美国学生占录取学生的29.9%。
Their share rose to a peak of 22.5% in 2014, before standing at 20.6% in 2019. In the Class of 2027, the last class admitted before the US Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions in June 2023, Asian-American students accounted for 29.9% of those admitted.
此后，入学的亚裔美国学生所占比例有所上升。2024年入学的2028届学生中，亚裔占37%；2025年入学的2029届学生中，这一比例为41%；根据哈佛大学于2026年10月27日发布的数据，2030届学生中该比例达到43.2%。
Since then, the share of Asian-American students among those enrolled has risen. They accounted for 37% of the Class of 2028, enrolled in 2024, and 41% of the Class of 2029, enrolled in 2025. The figure reached 43.2% in the Class of 2030, according to data released by Harvard on October 27, 2026.
与此同时，自2023年裁决以来，其他种族的代表性也同步下降。
At the same time, the representation of other races has seen a concurrent decline since the 2023 ruling.
黑人或非裔美国学生在2027届中占18%，在2028届降至14%，在2029届降至11.5%，在2030届进一步降至9.3%。
Black or African-American students accounted for 18% of the Class of 2027, falling to 14% in the Class of 2028, 11.5% in the Class of 2029 and 9.3% in the Class of 2030.
西班牙裔或拉丁裔的代表性最初从2027届的14%上升至2028届的16%，随后在2029届降至11%，在最新一届中为11.4%。
Hispanic or Latino representation initially rose from 14% in the Class of 2027 to 16% in the Class of 2028, before falling to 11% in the Class of 2029 and standing at 11.4% in the latest class.
这引出一个核心问题：哈佛大学的种族敏感招生政策是否损害了其他方面合格的亚裔美国申请者？要回答这个问题，有必要考察该校平权行动政策如何运作、针对它的歧视指控，以及美国最高法院为何在2023年推翻该政策。哈佛大学的平权行动政策及其被推翻的原因据《哈佛大学公报》2022年报道，“种族只是决定申请者独特之处及其能为哈佛社区带来什么的一个因素”。
This raises a central question: Did Harvard's race-conscious admissions policies disadvantage otherwise qualified Asian-American applicants? To answer that, it is necessary to examine how the university's affirmative action policy worked, the discrimination allegations brought against it, and why the US Supreme Court struck down the policy in 2023. HARVARD UNIVERSITY'S AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES, AND WHY WERE THEY STRUCK DOWN? According to a 2022 report in The Harvard Gazette, "race is just one factor is determining what makes an applicant unique and what they might bring to the Harvard community".
该报道列举的决定申请者资格的其他因素包括“学业成就和课外活动、个人陈述、教师和升学指导顾问的推荐信、以及申请者面试”，这些由一个“由40人组成的多元化委员会”综合考量。
Other factors that go into determining an applicant's eligibility listed by the report include "academic achievements and extracurricular activities, personal essays, recommendations from teachers and guidance counsellors, and applicant interviews", that are considered by a "diverse 40-person committee".
该报道还证实，“美国最高法院四十多年来支持哈佛等校的此类政策，即在招生中将种族作为众多因素之一加以考量，并承认学校在实现多元化学生群体所带来的益处方面拥有迫切利益”。
The report also attested that the US Supreme Court "for more than four decades upheld policies like those at Harvard, which consider race as one factor among many in admissions, and recognised that schools have a compelling interest in achieving the benefits associated with a diverse student body".
这一将种族纳入决定申请人资格因素的政策，遭到了“学生公平录取组织”（SFAA）的挑战，该组织由反对平权法案的爱德华·布鲁姆创立。
It was this policy of including race in the factors determining an applicant's eligibility that was challenged by Students for Fair Admissions (SFAA), an organisation founded by affirmative-action opponent Edward Blum.
SFAA 指控哈佛大学的招生程序歧视亚裔美国申请人，认为他们获得的个人评分较低，与其他申请人相比处于劣势。
The SFAA alleged that Harvard's admissions process discriminated against Asian-American applicants, arguing that they received lower personal ratings and faced disadvantages compared with other applicants.
最初的裁决支持哈佛大学。2019 年，联邦地区法院认定没有足够证据证明存在针对亚裔美国人的故意歧视。上诉法院维持了该判决。
Initial rulings took the side of Harvard. In 2019, a federal district court found insufficient evidence of intentional discrimination against Asian-Americans. The appeals court upheld that decision.
然而，2023 年 6 月 29 日，美国最高法院在“学生公平录取组织诉哈佛大学案”中，裁定哈佛大学和北卡罗来纳大学败诉。
However, on June 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
法院认定，它们的种族敏感型招生项目违反了《宪法》第十四修正案的平等保护条款。
The court held that their race-conscious admissions programmes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
作为联邦资金接受方，哈佛大学还受《1964 年民权法案》第六章约束，该章禁止接受联邦资助的机构实施种族歧视。
Harvard, as a recipient of federal funding, was also subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial discrimination by federally funded institutions.
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨撰写多数意见，指出这些大学的招生政策未能满足使用种族分类的宪法要求。他写道：“消除种族歧视意味着消除所有的种族歧视。”
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the universities' admissions policies failed to meet the constitutional requirements for using racial classifications. He wrote, "Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it."
法院还认定：“在招生过程中，个人的种族绝不能被用来对付他本人。”多数意见引用了下级法院审理中的一项认定，即哈佛大学对种族的考量使录取的亚裔美国学生数量估计减少了 11.1%。
The court also held, "An individual's race may never be used against him in the admissions process." The majority opinion referred to a finding from the lower-court proceedings that Harvard's consideration of race had reduced the number of Asian-American students admitted by an estimated 11.1%.
不过，最高法院并未认定哈佛大学故意设计政策以排除亚裔美国人。相反，法院裁定该校在招生中使用种族未能满足管辖种族敏感型选拔的法律要求。
However, the Supreme Court did not find that Harvard had deliberately designed its policy to exclude Asian-Americans. Rather, it ruled that the university's use of race in admissions failed to satisfy the legal requirements governing race-conscious selection.
该裁决并未禁止大学考虑申请人的种族背景如何塑造了其个人经历。相反，罗伯茨写道，申请人必须“根据其作为个人的经历进行评估——而非基于种族”。
The decision did not prohibit universities from considering how an applicant's racial background had shaped their individual experiences. Instead, Roberts wrote that applicants must be assessed "based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race".
尽管下级法院认定没有足够证据证明存在针对亚裔美国申请人的故意歧视，但自最高法院作出裁决以来，亚裔美国学生在哈佛录取新生中的比例有所上升，而黑人学生的比例则有所下降。
Although the lower courts had found insufficient evidence of intentional discrimination against Asian-American applicants, their representation among Harvard's enrolled students has risen since the Supreme Court ruling, while the share of Black students has declined.
尽管如此，该裁决仍引发了关于哈佛以往招生制度是否对亚裔美国申请人不利的争论。亚裔美国律师、作家、《彭博法律》专栏作家大卫·拉特在X平台上撰文，指出最新入学数据并写道：“这表明，在美最高法院作出SFFA案裁决之前，哈佛在招生问题上对亚裔美国申请人‘重重地按住了天平’。” 最新数据为哈佛学生人口结构自2023年裁决以来的变化提供了新的衡量标准。
The ruling has nevertheless fuelled debate over whether Harvard's previous admissions system disadvantaged Asian-American applicants. Writing on X, David Lat, an Asian-American lawyer, author and columnist for Bloomberg Law, pointed to the latest enrolment figures and wrote, "This suggests that Harvard, prior to the US Supreme Court's decision in SFFA, had a heavy thumb on the scale against Asian-American applicants." The latest figures offer a fresh measure of how Harvard's student demographics have shifted since the 2023 ruling.