GRETCHEN ERTL FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

He had perfect scores — on his SAT, on three SAT subject tests and on nine Advanced Placement exams — and was ranked first in his high school class of 592. An admissions officer who reviewed his application to Harvard called him “the proverbial picket fence,” the embodiment of the American dream, saying, “Someone we’ll fight over w/ Princeton, I’d guess.”

他的SAT考试、三次SAT专科考试和九次大学先修课程考试成绩无懈可击，在592名高中同届同学里排名第一。负责审核其哈佛大学申请书的招生官员称他是“公认的尖桩篱笆”——也就是美国梦的化身，这位官员说，“我猜我们得和普林斯顿争这个人。”

But in the end, the student was wait-listed and did not get in.

但是到最后，这名学生被列入候补名单，最终没有进入哈佛大学。

Generations of high school students have applied to Harvard thinking that if they checked all the right boxes, they would be admitted.

向哈佛提出申请的几代高中生们都认为，如果他们符合所有标准，就会被录取。

But behind the curtain, Harvard’s much-feared admissions officers have a whole other set of boxes that few ambitious high school students and their parents know about — or could check even if they did. The officers speak a secret language — of “dockets,” “the lop list,” “tips,” “DE,” the “Z-list” and the “dean’s interest list” — and maintain a culling system in which factors like where applicants are from, whether their parents went to Harvard, how much money they have and how they fit the school’s goals for diversity may be just as important as scoring a perfect 1600 on the SAT.

但在幕后，哈佛大学令人畏惧的招生官员还有另外一整套标准，是那些雄心勃勃的高中生和他们的父母所不知道的——就算知道，他们或许也无法满足这些标准。这些官员讲的是一种秘密语言——“备审表”、“缩减名单”、“小奖励”、“DE”、“Z名单”和“院长关注名单”——他们还有一个筛选系统，其中的条件包括申请者来自哪里、父母是否从哈佛毕业、他们有多少钱，以及他们是否适合学校的多样性目标，这一切可能跟SAT考1600分满分一样重要。

This arcane selection process has been illuminated by a lawsuit accusing Harvard of violating federal civil rights law by using racial balancing to shape its admissions in a way that discriminates against Asian-Americans. Harvard says it does not discriminate. Hundreds of admissions documents have been filed in the suit — over the university’s objections that they could reveal trade secrets — and many sections that were previously redacted have been ordered unsealed in recent weeks.

这一神秘的遴选过程因一项诉讼而受到关注，该诉讼指控哈佛在招生过程中利用种族平衡，以一种歧视亚裔美国人的方式来调整招生工作，违反了联邦民权法。哈佛说自己没有歧视行为。在诉讼过程中，不顾哈佛大学以透露商业机密为由的反对，数百份入学文件得以提交，最近几周，法庭还要求公开许多之前涂黑过的部分。

“I hope that no student who doesn’t get accepted to Harvard — by the way, I wasn’t accepted to Harvard College out of high school; I wouldn’t let me in, even today — what you hope is that people do not read this as if it’s a validation either of who they are nor an invalidation of their potential or their achievement,” said Rakesh Khurana, the dean of Harvard College, who went to Cornell as an undergraduate.

“我希望未被哈佛大学录取的学生不会以此界定自己的身份、或是把这看成对他们的潜力与成就的否定——顺便说一句，我高中毕业后也没有被哈佛大学录取；即使到了今天，我也不会让当初的我入学，”哈佛大学本科生院长拉凯什·库南纳(Rakesh Khurana)说。他本科读的是康奈尔大学。

The lawsuit, brought by an anti-affirmative action group called Students for Fair Admissions, has revived the national debate over race-conscious admissions, which is playing out from colleges down to elementary schools.

这场诉讼由一个名为大学生公平录取(Student for Fair Admissions)的反歧视行动小组提起，它重新启动了在入学录取时考虑种族因素的全国性辩论，其范围涵盖了从大学直到小学。

That debate goes back to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ‘60s. The assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 was a turning point, pushing colleges to redouble their efforts to be more representative of U.S. society.

该辩论可以追溯到1950年代到60年代的民权运动。小马丁·路德·金博士(Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.)于1968年被暗杀是一个转折点，促使大学加倍努力，令其学生构成更能代表美国社会。

But Asians were an overlooked minority despite a long history of discrimination. As late as 1976, Harvard did not recognize them as a minority group and barred them from a freshman minority orientation banquet. They had a kind of neither-nor identity, denied both the solidarity of other students of color and the social standing of white people.

但是，尽管有长期遭受歧视的历史，亚洲人仍是一个被忽视的少数群体。直到1976年，哈佛大学并没有将他们视为少数群体，禁止他们参加少数族裔新生酒会。他们有一种二者皆非的特性——既没有其他有色人种学生的团结，也没有白人的社会地位。

Since then the stakes in the admissions game have grown. About 40,000 students apply each year, and about 2,000 are admitted for some 1,600 seats in the freshman class. The chances of admission this year were under 5 percent. Of the 26,000 domestic applicants for the Class of 2019 (the lawsuit is not concerned with international students), about 3,500 had perfect SAT math scores, 2,700 had perfect SAT verbal scores, and more than 8,000 had straight A’s.

从那以后，招生录取率越来越低。每年约有4万名学生申请，大约2000名学生会得到入学通知，可以在大一新生班级的1600个座位中拥有一席之地。今年的申请获批率不到5%。在2019级的2.6万名国内申请者中（该诉讼与国际学生无关），大约3500人在SAT数学考试中获得满分，2700人在SAT词汇考试中获得满分，超过8000人拥有全优成绩。

The sorting begins right away. The country is divided into about 20 geographic “dockets,” each of which is assigned to a subcommittee of admissions officers with intimate knowledge of that region and its high schools.

入学筛选随之开始。哈佛大学把全国分为大约20个地理“备审表”，每个备审表都被分配给一个对该地区及其高中有深入了解的招生官员小组委员会。

Generally two or three admissions officers, or readers, rate applications in five categories: academic, extracurricular, athletic, personal and “overall.” An alumni interviewer also rates the candidates.

一般来说，有两三个招生官员或审阅者会从五个方面对申请者进行评定：学术、课外、体育、个性和“综合”。还有一位校友面试官会对候选人进行评定。

Harvard says it also considers “tips,” or admissions advantages, for some applicants. The plaintiffs say the college gives tips to five groups: racial and ethnic minorities; legacies, or the children of Harvard or Radcliffe alumni; relatives of a Harvard donor; the children of staff or faculty members; and recruited athletes.

哈佛大学表示，对于一些申请人来说，它也会考虑“小奖励”或者说招生优势。原告称，学院向五个群体提供小奖励：少数族裔；继承群体，即哈佛或拉德克利夫校友的子女；哈佛捐助者的亲属；工作人员或教职员工的子女；以及学校招募的运动员。

Whether Harvard gives a penalty — in effect, the opposite of a tip — to Asian-Americans goes to the heart of the current litigation. A 1990 report by the Education Department found that Harvard was not giving tips for being Asian-American. A 2013 internal report by Harvard found that being Asian-American was negatively correlated with admission, as did an expert analysis for the plaintiffs. But using a different statistical approach, Harvard’s expert found a modest bump for two subgroups of Asian-Americans — women and applicants from California — belying, Harvard said, the overall claim of discrimination.

哈佛是否在惩罚亚裔美国人群体——实际上就是“小奖励”的反面——是当前诉讼的核心。教育部1990年的一份报告表明，哈佛没有对亚裔美国人给予奖励。哈佛大学2013年的一份内部报告表明，亚裔美国人身份与入学率呈负相关，原告的专家分析也是如此。但哈佛大学的专家使用不同的统计方法，认为亚裔美国人中的两个亚群体（女性和来自加利福尼亚州的申请人）入学率的适度上升可以证明，歧视主张从整体而言是站不住脚的。

There are other ways to bolster one’s chances of admission, according to the court papers. Savvy alumni hope to gain an advantage for their children by volunteering for Harvard, perhaps by being an admissions interviewer.

法庭文件显示，还有其他方法可以增加学生的入学机会。精明的校友希望通过为哈佛大学做志愿者（也许是招生面试官），可以为子女赢得优势。

It also helps to secure a spot on the “dean’s interest list” or the “director’s interest list.” These are not the familiar lists from academic deans recognizing students with good grades. These lists are named for the dean and director of admissions, and include the names of candidates who are of interest to donors or have connections to Harvard, according to the court papers.

在“院长关注名单”或“主任关注名单”上获取一席之地也是有帮助的。这个名单并不是人们熟悉的那种成绩优异、受到大学院长认可的学生列表。根据法庭文件，它们以院长和招生主任的名字命名，上面是与捐赠者有利益关系，或与哈佛有关系的申请者姓名。

The final decisions are made by a committee of about 40 admissions officers over two or three weeks in March. Meeting in a conference room, they argue over candidates who are “on the bubble” between admission and rejection.

最终决定由一个大约40名招生负责人组成的委员会在3月份用两三周的时间做出。在会议室碰头的时候，他们会就那些在录取和拒绝之间“待定”的候选人展开争论。

Court filings also explore Harvard’s little-known Z-list, a sort of back door to admissions.

法庭文件还查阅了哈佛大学鲜为人知的Z名单，有点像是为招生工作留的后门。

Harvard is reticent about the Z-list, and much of the information pertaining to it in court papers has been redacted. The list consists of applicants who are borderline academically, the plaintiffs say, but whom Harvard wants to admit. They often have connections. They may be “Z-ed” (yes, a verb) off the wait-list, and are guaranteed admission on the condition that they defer for a year.

哈佛对Z名单保持着沉默，法庭文件中关于该名单的大部分信息都经过了涂黑处理。原告表示，这份名单上都是些成绩介于合格与不合格之间，但哈佛又想录取的申请者。他们往往是一些关系很厉害的人。他们可能从候补名单上“被Z了”（对，是一个动词），在推迟一年的条件下保证被录取。

About 50 to 60 students a year were admitted through the Z-list for the Classes of 2014 to 2019. They were for the most part white, often legacies or students on the dean’s or director’s list, the plaintiffs say.

2014届至2019届期间，每年约有50至60名学生通过Z名单录取。原告说，这些人大部分是白人，一般家里有人在哈佛读过书，或者是院长、主任希望录取的学生。

Chuck Hughes, an admissions officer at Harvard from 1995-2000, described a special review given to minority applicants while he was there.

1995年至2000年期间担任哈佛大学招生人员的查克·休斯(Chuck Hughes)描述了他在职期间对少数族裔申请人的一项特别审查。

Early in his tenure, he said, all competitive applicants had their files studied by at least two readers. He said some minority applicants would also have their file reviewed by a third reader who was considering the racial composition of the entire class.

他说，一开始所有有竞争力的申请者至少都有两位审读人研究过他们的档案。他说，一些少数族裔申请者还会有第三位正在考虑整个班级种族构成的审读人进行评估。

“If there was uncertainty on a case in which there were candidates that might have represented minority interests — an Asian-American, an African-American, a Hispanic or a Native American candidate — those would be passed on to someone who was looking at the entire slate of candidates in that particular demographic pool,” Hughes said.

“如果一个不确定的案子涉及少数族裔候选者——一名亚裔、一名非裔、一名西裔或者一名原住民，那么这些人的文件档案将会交给正在考虑该特定族裔整体候选情况的审读者来评估”休斯说。

Hughes said that practice ended early in his time at Harvard.

休斯说，这种做法在他入职哈佛之初就已经停止了。

But the court papers describe a continuing process called “a lop,” which the plaintiffs say is used to shape the demographic profile of the class.

但法庭文件描述了一个一直在采用的、名为“剥夺优先权”的方法，原告表示，它用于调整班级的学生构成。

In a response filed in court Friday, Harvard said that all information in an application file is considered during the lop, and that lopping is not used to control the racial makeup of the class.

哈佛周五提交给法庭的回应中说，申请文件中的所有信息都是在“剥夺优先权”期间考虑的，而且剥夺优先权并不是为了控制班级的种族构成。

The plaintiffs say that the personal rating — which considers an applicant’s character and personality — is the most insidious of Harvard’s admissions metrics. They say that Asian-Americans are routinely described as industrious and intelligent, but unexceptional and indistinguishable — characterizations that recall painful stereotypes for many people of Asian descent. (The applicant who was the “proverbial picket fence” was Asian-American.)

原告称，针对申请者的性格和个性的个人评分，是哈佛大学最为隐秘可疑的招生标准。他们说，亚裔美国人通常被描述为勤奋、聪明，但不突出、难以区分，对于许多亚裔人士来说，这让人想起令人痛苦的刻板印象（那个被称为“公认的尖桩篱笆”的申请者就是亚裔美国人）。

Khurana, the Harvard College dean, acknowledged that Harvard was not always perfect, but said it was trying to get its practices right.

哈佛大学本科生院长库南纳承认，哈佛并不总是完美，但表示它在努力用正确的方式行事。

“I have a great deal of humility knowing that some day history will judge us,” Khurana said. “I think that’s why we are constantly asking ourselves this question: How can we do better? How could we be better? What are we missing? Where are our blind spots?”

“我非常谦卑地知晓，历史总有一天会评判我们，”库南纳说。“我想这就是我们为什么反复自问这样一个问题的原因：我们要怎样才能做得更好？我们要如何变的更好？我们漏掉了什么？我们的盲点在哪里？”

作者：ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS, AMY HARMON, MITCH SMITH
翻译：晋其角、Duran

下载客户端

安卓：全新安卓客户端可通过Google Play下载安装。

iOS：iOS客户端版本更新，推出搜索等功能。

苹果手机用户可在非中国大陆地区应用商店下载，也可发送邮件至[email protected]获取新版客户端，或私信时报君获取下载方式。

感谢各位读者的关注和支持！

更多文章：

当哈佛大学免费了，亚裔就不会被歧视？

哈佛大学是否歧视亚裔学生？