回到上周的判决。大法官的诠释体现出了金博士和民权运动的初衷，即人们“will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." AA 多少有点像婴儿的纸尿布，它确实在民权运动的婴儿时期发挥了积极作用。但这些年来，实际执行中变成了按照种族分名额，就像一个糕点铺，奶油卷柠檬卷巧克力卷，各有定额，各类跟同类分别内卷，于是就出现了柠檬卷不但需要比巧克力卷大一号，甚至需要比不必照顾的奶油卷大一圈（SAT高140分)才算合格的咄咄怪事。我的绝大部分亚裔朋友并不反对给非裔西裔适当照顾，但后者就显得有点诡异了吧。事实上AA把DEI狭隘化了，变成了按种族贴标签分果果，在60年来各种多元化多样化大大进步的条件下，已经可以淘汰，就像小孩完成了potty training就不再需要纸尿布一样。DEI 当然要包容各个种族，但更加重要的是包容各种思潮和不同的看法，相互协调平衡，共赢而非对立。
“Oxford and Cambridge have long rejected the practice of legacy admissions. “Most people from Britain are genuinely shocked to find that elite U.S. universities reserve places for the children of the rich and well connected,” writes British academic Nigel Thrift in the Chronicle of Higher Education.”
MIT, UC Berkeley, Oxford, CalTech, Cambridge and University of Washington
这其中包括牛津和剑桥，连他们都摒弃legacy了，legacy在美国还有保留的必要嘛？
“Oxford and Cambridge have long rejected the practice of legacy admissions. “Most people from Britain are genuinely shocked to find that elite U.S. universities reserve places for the children of the rich and well connected,” writes British academic Nigel Thrift in the Chronicle of Higher Education.”
MIT 讲得也很直接：
n a 2012 blog post, Assistant Director of Admissions at MIT Chris Peterson wrote, “Preferring a student whose parents attended a college not only takes away a spot from an equal or better student, it specifically takes away a spot from an equal or better student who overcame more by not having the advantages accrued by prior generations.”
“To be clear: If you got into MIT, it’s because you got into MIT. Simple as that.”
回到上周的判决。大法官的诠释体现出了金博士和民权运动的初衷，即人们“will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." AA 多少有点像婴儿的纸尿布，它确实在民权运动的婴儿时期发挥了积极作用。但这些年来，实际执行中变成了按照种族分名额，就像一个糕点铺，奶油卷柠檬卷巧克力卷，各有定额，各类跟同类分别内卷，于是就出现了柠檬卷不但需要比巧克力卷大一号，甚至需要比不必照顾的奶油卷大一圈（SAT高140分)才算合格的咄咄怪事。我的绝大部分亚裔朋友并不反对给非裔西裔适当照顾，但后者就显得有点诡异了吧。事实上AA把DEI狭隘化了，变成了按种族贴标签分果果，在60年来各种多元化多样化大大进步的条件下，已经可以淘汰，就像小孩完成了potty training就不再需要纸尿布一样。DEI 当然要包容各个种族，但更加重要的是包容各种思潮和不同的看法，相互协调平衡，共赢而非对立。
