华盛顿邮报 美国高校未来招生将不考虑种族因素？(1)（在线收听）

    Well, at the core of this -- of this case is the question of how much does race count in decision-making processes in America?

    这个案件的核心问题是，美国的种族因素在决策过程中占多大比重?

    The court is saying it's time for a new era.

    法院表示是时候进入一个新时代了。

    Nick Anderson is a higher education reporter at The Post.

    尼克·安德森是《华盛顿邮报》的高等教育记者。

    He's been reporting on colleges that consider race in admissions.

    他一直在报道在招生中考虑种族因素的大学。

    It's a policy based on decades of affirmative action precedent, and this week, the Supreme Court rejected that policy.

    这是一项根据数十年平权行动的判例实施的政策，本周，最高法院驳回了这项政策。

    And we're extremely strictly limiting the place that race and ethnicity have in these specific high stakes admissions decisions.

    我们非常严格地限制着种族和民族因素在这些特定的高风险录取裁决中的地位。

    These decisions are highly charged.

    这些裁决充满压力。

    Right after Thursday's ruling, Yukong Mike Zhao showed up outside the court to celebrate.

    就在周四的裁决之后，赵宇空出现在法庭外庆祝。

    Our children will no longer be treated as second class citizens in college admission.

    我们的孩子在大学入学中将不再被视为二等公民。

    Zhao is president of the Asian American Coalition for Education, a group that actively supported the lawsuit against this policy.

    赵宇空是亚裔美国人教育联盟的主席，该组织积极支持针对这一政策提起的诉讼。

    The rulings preserve meritocracy, which is the bedrock of the American dream.

    这些裁决维护了精英领导阶级，这一阶级是美国梦的基石。

    Steps away, Christopher Banks was furious about the outcome.

    几步之外，克里斯托弗·班克斯对这个结果感到愤怒。

    This opinion is highly regrettable, highly regrettable.

    这种观点非常可悲，非常可叹。

    He's director of education policy at the Urban League of Portland, and he was outside the court leading a group of high school students on a summer program in D.C..

    他是波特兰城市联盟的教育政策主任，他在法庭外带领一群高中生参加华盛顿特区的一个暑期项目。

    I myself benefited from Brown, Columbia, and Oxford. I benefited from an excellent education. I want the same for these students.

    我自己也受益于布朗大学、哥伦比亚大学和牛津大学。我受益于优质教育。我希望这些学生也能这样。

    So what are we to do now? What are we to do now?

    那我们现在该怎么办? 我们现在该怎么办?

    Today I talk with higher education reporter Nick Anderson about what's next for universities after the Supreme Court's historic decision about how race is used in college admissions.

    今天，我与高等教育记者尼克·安德森讨论了，在最高法院就如何在大学录取中使用种族因素做出历史性裁决后，大学的下一步是什么。

    So, Nick, the Supreme Court has ruled to restrict affirmative action, at least in the case of higher education.

    尼克，最高法院做出了限制平权法案的裁决，至少在高等教育方面是这样。

    Can you explain how this ruling went and what are the key takeaways?

    你能解释一下这一裁决是如何进行的吗，有哪些重要信息?

    The first point to make is that the court split ideologically along what is by now a pretty familiar fault line.

    首先要说明的是，最高法院的思想分歧围绕，到目前为止，我们非常熟悉的分歧展开。

    The six justices that are in the conservative majority stayed in the majority here.

    保守派占多数的六名大法官在本案中仍占多数。

    The three justices that are in the liberal minority stayed in the minority here.

    自由派占少数的三名法官在本案中仍占少数。

    The ruling came from the chief justice, John Roberts.

    这项裁决来自首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨。

    And the six justices in the majority declared that the admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, had violated the equal protection guarantees in the Constitution占多数的六名法官宣布，哈佛大学与北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校的招生项目违反了宪法中的平等保护保障，and that, therefore, the colleges and universities that practice this kind of admissions, race conscious admissions must revisit their practices and make sure they don't do that anymore.

    因此，实行这种考虑种族因素的招生的学院和大学必须重新审视他们的做法，确保他们不再这样做。