最高法院原则上取消AA制，民主党和支持他们的打砸抢分子一片哀嚎

华盛顿——周四，最高法院裁定哈佛大学和北卡罗来纳大学的种族意识招生政策违反宪法，终止了高等教育领域的平权行动，这一决定将在全国各校园产生反响。

法院在北卡罗来纳大学案件中按照意识形态立场以 6 比 3 的裁决，在哈佛纠纷中以 6 比 2 的裁决，但法官克坦吉·布朗·杰克逊 (Ketanji Brown Jackson) 回避了诉讼。 首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨撰写了多数意见，大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯、塞缪尔·阿利托、尼尔·戈萨奇、布雷特·卡瓦诺和艾米·科尼·巴雷特也参与其中。 托马斯宣读了替补席上的一致意见。 索尼娅·索托马约尔法官也大声宣读了她的异议，这是本学期首次有异议的法官这样做。

罗伯茨写道：“哈佛和北卡罗来纳大学的招生计划与平等保护条款的保证无法调和。” “这两个项目都缺乏充分针对性和可衡量的目标来保证种族的使用，不可避免地以消极的方式使用种族，涉及种族成见，并且缺乏有意义的终点。我们从未允许招生项目以这种方式运作，我们也不会这样做 所以今天。”

但罗伯茨写道，大学仍然可以考虑“申请人关于种族如何影响他或她的生活的讨论，无论是通过歧视、灵感还是其他方式。” 由于军事院校呈现出“潜在的独特利益”，因此实际上不受该决定的影响。

首席大法官总结道，必须根据他们“作为个人的经历，而不是种族”对学生进行评估。

“长期以来，许多大学的做法恰恰相反，”罗伯茨说。 “在这样做的过程中，他们错误地得出结论，个人身份的试金石不是克服的挑战、培养的技能或吸取的教训，而是他们的肤色。我们的宪法历史不允许这种选择。”

(日裔女法官）索托马约尔在激烈的异议中表示，多数意见“没有法律或事实依据，违反了第十四修正案所体现的平等愿景”。

Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that race-conscious admission policies of Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Constitution, bringing an end to affirmative action in higher education in a decision that will reverberate across campuses nationwide.

The court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in the University of North Carolina case, and 6-2 in the Harvard dispute, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Thomas read a concurring opinion from the bench. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also read her dissent aloud, the first time a dissenting justice has done so this term.

"The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause," Roberts wrote. "Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today."

But Roberts wrote that universities can still consider "an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise." Military academies are effectively exempt from the decision, due to the "potentially distinct interests" they present.

Students, the chief justice concluded, must be evaluated based on their experiences "as an individual — not on the basis of race."

 

"Many universities have for too long done just the opposite," Roberts said. "And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice."

In a fierce dissent, Sotomayor said the majority opinion is "not grounded in law or fact and contravenes the vision of equality embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment."