亞裔美國(guó)學(xué)生應(yīng)得到哈佛公平對(duì)待

致編輯：

Re “Is Harvard Unfair to Asian-Americans?” (Op-Ed,Nov. 25):

本文是對(duì)《哈佛大學(xué)是否歧視亞裔學(xué)生》一文的回應(yīng)。

I wholeheartedly support Yascha Mounk’s article,especially in its delinking of affirmative action forunderrepresented minorities from the capping ofAsian-American admissions. But by capping Asian-American admissions, if it is doing that, Harvard doesmore than recapitulate its own sorry history of anti-Semitism.

我完全贊同雅斯查·蒙克的觀點(diǎn)文章，尤其是他把針對(duì)弱勢(shì)族裔的平權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)和限制亞裔美國(guó)學(xué)生錄取兩件事分開來看的說法。但限制亞裔美國(guó)學(xué)生錄取這件事，如果哈佛真的在這么做的話，此事更甚于重演那段反猶主義的恥辱校史。

It also recapitulates a sorry United States history of discrimination against Asians, from theAsian Exclusion Act of 1882 on. Right through the repeal of the Magnuson Act in 1965, theword “quota” has been featured.

此事也是美國(guó)另一端恥辱歷史的重演：1882年的排華法案(Asian Exclusion Act)就開啟了美國(guó)歧視亞裔的歷史。

GISH JEN Cambridge, Mass., Nov. 25, 2014

GISHE JEN 馬薩諸塞州坎布里奇，2014年11月25日

The writer, a Harvard alumna, is a novelist.

作者是一名小說家，哈佛校友。

To the Editor:

致編輯：

As the father of a son who graduated from Harvard (and who might not have been able to doso in the heyday of the restrictions on Jewish admissions that A. Lawrence Lowell, Harvard’spresident nearly a century ago, put into place), and the son of a father who once led the NewYork chapter of the Japanese-American Citizens League, I can’t help but feel discomfort inreading about the continuing discrimination against Asian-Americans at Harvard.

作為一名父親，我的兒子從哈佛畢業(yè)(若是生活在哈佛校長(zhǎng)A·勞倫斯·洛厄爾[A. Lawrence Lowell]限制猶太學(xué)生錄取的時(shí)期，我的兒子可能就無法做到這點(diǎn)了)，作為一名父親，我的兒子還曾是日裔美國(guó)公民聯(lián)盟紐約分社的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人，所以當(dāng)我讀到這篇關(guān)于哈佛一直歧視亞裔美國(guó)學(xué)生的文章時(shí)，真的感覺很難受。

The prestigious institutions wishing to better represent underserved populations run the riskof accepting applicants whose admissions may be undeserved, at the expense of those(arguably) better qualified.

這家久負(fù)盛名的學(xué)校因?yàn)橄Ｍ嗟卣疹櫲鮿?shì)群體，卻因此冒著錄取很多未達(dá)標(biāo)的學(xué)生的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，也犧牲了那些更達(dá)標(biāo)的(有爭(zhēng)議)學(xué)生。

While I’m not suggesting that Harvard accept only applicants with perfect SAT scores (which itcould), discounting merit sends a terrible message to Asian-Americans, whose forebearssuffered from significant historical discrimination (internment camps and job and propertyrights restrictions).

盡管我不是在提議哈佛只錄取那些有著完美SAT成績(jī)的學(xué)生(它本可以這么做)，但把擇優(yōu)錄取的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)打折扣，卻給亞裔美國(guó)學(xué)生傳遞了一個(gè)很糟糕的訊息，他們的先輩在歷史上經(jīng)受了嚴(yán)重的歧視(集中營(yíng)，就業(yè)、財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)受限)。

As for the “slightly less strong on extracurricular criteria” argument (put forward by aHarvard admission dean in 1988), I would recommend that the admission committee membersvisit the next music recital their children participate in and look for the (disproportionatelylarge) number of Asian-American faces. Slightly less strong indeed!

至于“課余標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上的表現(xiàn)稍差”的說法(這是1988年哈佛大學(xué)一個(gè)招生主任提出的)，我建議招生委員會(huì)的成員們到他們孩子參演的音樂會(huì)上看看，數(shù)一數(shù)里面有多少亞裔美國(guó)學(xué)生。還真是“表現(xiàn)稍差”啊!

JOHN B. SPRUNG New York, Nov. 25, 2014

JOHN B. SPRUNG 紐約，2014年11月25日

To the Editor:

致編輯：

When I was a student at Harvard nearly 50 years ago, it was accepted as an article of faith thatif admission were simply a matter of grade point averages and standardized test scores,Harvard could fill an entire class without venturing outside the greater New York area.

在50年前我還是哈佛學(xué)生的時(shí)候，大家都一致認(rèn)同，如果學(xué)校的招生只是看平均績(jī)點(diǎn)和統(tǒng)一考試成績(jī)那么簡(jiǎn)單的話，哈佛不用在紐約大區(qū)以外招生就可以招滿一個(gè)班級(jí)。

But that is not and has never been the mission of Harvard College, which these days rejectsnearly 95 percent of a self-selected group of high achievers, nearly all of whom could beacademically successful there.

但這個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不是，也從來不是哈佛大學(xué)的錄取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，哈佛今天依然拒絕了95%自認(rèn)為都是極為優(yōu)秀的學(xué)生，這些人里幾乎所有人都能在哈佛取得好成績(jī)。

That mission, I believe, is to put together interesting, diverse young people who can teach andlearn from one another in the training of the hearts and minds of future leaders.

我認(rèn)為，哈佛的錄取旨在把有趣、多元的年輕人聚集在一起，讓他們可以相互學(xué)習(xí)，以培養(yǎng)未來領(lǐng)袖的心靈與智慧。

Nobody is entitled to a seat at Harvard. And any unsuccessful applicant who presumes toattack the integrity of the world’s greatest educational institution only proves by his or herself-esteeming behavior that Harvard made the right decision.

沒有人可以憑白在哈佛獲得一席之位。任何申請(qǐng)失敗的人對(duì)這一世界上最偉大的教育機(jī)構(gòu)的公平公正發(fā)起的攻擊，都只會(huì)因這種他/她這種自我的行為，證明哈佛做了正確的選擇。

Elite education is not a zero-sum game; an outstanding education can be achieved at anynumber of state and private institutions.

精英教育不是零和博弈;出色的教育在很多學(xué)校，在私立學(xué)校都能實(shí)現(xiàn)。

VAUGHN A. CARNEY Stowe, Vt., Nov. 25, 2014

VAUGHAN A. CARNEY 佛蒙特州斯托，2014年11月25日

To the Editor:

致編輯：

Yascha Mounk points out that Harvard allots 13 percent of its admission slots to recruitedathletes. With this revelation one wonders why Harvard spends its educational capital onentertainment of alumni rather than on preparing a new generation of talented,knowledgeable, serious students as well as giving Harvard College the opportunity toincrease diversity.

雅斯查·蒙克指出了哈佛將13%的錄取名額分配于招收體育生。這樣一個(gè)現(xiàn)象被揭示不免讓人疑問，為什么哈佛要把教育資本花在娛樂師生上，而不是用在培養(yǎng)有天賦、有知識(shí)、嚴(yán)肅的學(xué)生上，或是用于提高哈佛多元化上。

A. JO PROCTER Chevy Chase, Md., Nov. 25, 2014

A. JO PROCTER 馬里蘭州切維塞斯，2014年11月25日