原文作者：John Yoo 

翻译：秦伟平

编者按： 洛杉矶时报是美国主流新闻媒体中发行量比较大的一家媒体。 该报纸的立场通常篇左，但这一篇由加州大学伯克利分校法学教授JohnYoo撰写的有关美国亚裔的文章冲破了原来的拘束，大胆披露美国亚裔的真实状况，站在一个比较公正的立场上看问题，很值得一读。 该文原载于洛杉矶时报 2018. 6. 24。 谢谢原作者John Yoo教授！ 也谢谢秦伟平先生及时翻译成中文！ 以下是中文版全文：

摘要：“最聪明的选民应该保证自已处于游戏之中，通过一场一场的选举，选择真正代表自己利益的候选人。”

相对于他们所有的智慧，从一些方面来看，亚裔美国人也可以非常的愚蠢。

他们成群结队地支持民主党，但民主党却支持基于种族的强制性优待政策（Affirmative action, 简称AA). 

上周，一场诉讼案揭示了这种决策如何具有歧视性。 在哈佛大学，种族平衡 - 以申请人个性得分为幌子 - 显示在系统地减少亚裔美国学生入读大学的机会。

哈佛大丑闻包含了很多内容，但是我希望能与我的亚裔美国同胞保持一致：现在是我们结束对民主党的盲目忠诚的时候了，相反我们应该来支持那些会促进我们利益的政治家。

亚裔美国人是美国最具活力的少数族裔群体。在2000年至2010年的人口普查中，美国的亚裔人口增长了近50％。根据社会科学调查和人口普查，他们是最富有和受过最好教育的美国人。 他们比任何其他族群更有可能经营一家小企业。 他们非常虔诚，有着强烈的家庭观念和较低的离婚率。亚洲家庭促使他们的孩子在很难的标准化考试中获得高分，并达到最高等级的平均分。

在最近的总统选举中，亚裔美国人一直投票支持民主党。2012年，民意调查显示，73％的亚洲选民投了奥巴马，在所有族群中仅次于美国黑人。2016年，三分之二的亚洲选民支持希拉里.克林顿，再次次于黑人美国人，这一次与拉丁美洲人并列。亚裔美国人最后一次投票给共和党人总统候选人，是1996年当时他们选择了鲍勃.多尔（似乎只有选举人）。

民主党给于亚裔这种长期地坚定不移支持的回报是：坚定不移地支持以种族为基础的学校招生和政府项目，例如在哈佛大学歧视亚裔美国人的项目。

由民主党总统任命的每位最高法院法官都以多元化的名义支持基于种族的入学计划。民主党政府在法庭上积极支持这些相同的计划。在加利福尼亚州，民主党人一再寻求推翻209号提案，这一法律意在阻止加州大学伯克利分校和加州大学洛杉矶分校在大学录取过程中使用种族作为一个因素。

在今天的纽约市，民主党市长白思豪建议终止在特殊高中考试录取制度 - 仅仅因为太多亚洲人在考试中做得太好。

哈佛大学和民主党都赞成采用“整体”招生政策，使得校园内种族和族裔群体达到“正确”平衡。在“学生公平入学（Students for  Fair Admission, 简称SFA) 的诉讼的压力下，该大学透露，如果学术成绩单独决定录取，亚洲人将占到学生数的43％。但哈佛大学将申请人的实力分为五类。尽管亚洲人在学术和课外活动中得分最高，但哈佛给他们在幽默，敏感度，创造力，勇气和领导力等个人特质方面的评分最低。

个人评级在2013年使亚洲人的入学率保持在26％。然后哈佛进行了“人口构成”调整，将亚洲人入学率进一步降至19％，这似乎与多年来被哈佛大学录取的亚洲人的百分比相同。上个世纪早期，常春藤大学采用了类似的标准和方法来避免接纳犹太人学生。

大学招生不是亚裔美国人和民主党人应该反对的唯一事情。民主党领导了抵制共和党国会的减税和特朗普政府放松管制的政策。与之相对应的是，亚洲人则经营着因膨涨的大政府而遭受最多痛苦的家庭式小店小生意。正如法庭关于婚礼蛋糕和医疗保险的案例所显示的那样，民主党人发动了一场联邦和国家层面上的战争来对针对一些宗教人士反对堕胎或反对同性婚姻的权利。实际上，亚洲人是最热忱的福音派基督徒人群之一。

为什么亚裔美国人拒绝投票他们的兴趣仍然是一个深刻的难题。部分问题来自于于共和党人。像过去的移民一样，许多亚洲人首先登陆美国的大城市，但共和党不再认真在内陆城市竞举。依靠市政府办理安全街道，营业执照和优质学校的亚裔美国人可能永远不会见到一位严肃的共和党政治家。毫不奇怪，这些移民，特别是那些逃离专制国家的移民，会加入民主党，仅仅只是为了获得公平的尝试。

更诡异的是，亚裔美国人也可能因尊重高等教育而受到洗脑。正如哈佛大学的情况所显示的那样，美国一些最好的学校愿意为了政治上正确的种族平衡，而舍弃优点和成就这些决定教育本质的因素。亚洲人可能会认为意识形态与诺贝尔奖获奖大学的科学研究一样“真实可信”。亚洲人仍然正在争夺那些忽视他们的才能和成就的大学机构。

亚裔美国人可以通过质疑他们对民主党的忠诚来改变他们自相矛盾的政治观念。 最聪明的选民应该保证自已处于游戏之中，通过一场一场的选举，选择真正代表自己利益的候选人。

我相信支持市场和我们学校公平竞争的政治家 - 很可能是共和党人  -最能代表亚裔美国人的利益。亚洲选民通过反对支持使用种族来选择赢家，输家甚至哈佛学生的任何人，将不仅仅会使亚裔自身受益，而且全体美国人民也会受益。

(John Yoo是加州大学伯克利分校的法学教授和美国企业研究所的访问学者。 他毕业于哈佛大学，获得美国历史学位。)

（原文链接： http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-yoo-asian-american-

bias-harvard-20180624-story.html?from=groupmessage&isappinstalled=0）

附录： 英文版原文：

For all their smarts, Asian Americans can be pretty dumb.

They support Democrats in droves, and Democrats support race-based affirmative action. Last week, a lawsuit revealed just how discriminatory that kind of decision-making can be. At Harvard, racial balancing — in the guise of a personality score for applicants — appears to be systematically reducing the admission of Asian American students to the university.

The Harvard scandal contains a lot of takeaways, but here’s the one I hope sticks with my fellow Asian Americans: It’s time for us to end our blind loyalty to the Democratic Party and support instead politicians who will promote our interests.

Asian Americans are the most dynamic minority group in the U.S. Between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, the Asian population in the U.S. grew by nearly 50%. According to social science surveys and the census, they are the wealthiest and best-educated Americans. They are more likely to run a small business than any other racial group. They are deeply religious, with strong family values and a low divorce rate. Asian families push their children hard to score at the top of standardized tests and to achieve sterling grade-point averages.

In recent presidential elections, Asian Americans have consistently voted Democratic. In 2012, exit polling shows that 73% of Asian voters turned out for Barack Obama, second only, among racial/ethnic groups, to African Americans. In 2016, two-thirds of Asian voters supported Hillary Clinton, again second to black Americans and this time tied with Latinos. Asian Americans last voted for a Republican for president way back in 1996, when they went for Bob Dole (about the only voters who did, it seems).

The Democratic Party has rewarded this unwavering support with an unyielding defense of race-based school admissions and government programs such as the one that’s been working against Asian Americans at Harvard.

Every Supreme Court justice appointed by a Democratic president has upheld race-based school admissions programs in the name of diversity. Democratic administrations have aggressively supported these same programs in court. In California, Democrats have sought repeatedly to overturn Proposition 209, the law that prevents UC Berkeley and UCLA from rescurrecting the use of race as a factor in their admission process. In New York City today, Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio proposes to end the standardized single-test admission system used by magnet schools — because too many Asians do too well on the tests.

Harvard, and the Democratic Party, favor “holistic” admissions policies that yield what is considered to be the “right” balance of racial and ethnic groups on campus. Under pressure of a lawsuit filed by Students for Fair Admission, the university disclosed that Asians would make up 43% of the student body if academic scores alone dictated admissions. But Harvard ranks applicants on their strengths in five categories. Even though Asians score highest on academics and extracurricular activities, Harvard gave them the lowest possible score on personal traits such as humor, sensitivity, creativity, grit and leadership.

The personal rating kept Asians to 26% of admissions in 2013. Harvard then made “demographic” adjustments that further reduced the class to 19% Asian, which magically appears to be the same percentage of Asians that’s been admitted to Harvard for years. Ivy League schools used similar criteria and methods early in the last century to avoid admitting Jewish students.

University admissions is not the only thing over which Asian Americans and Democrats should disagree. Democrats have led the resistance to the Republican Congress’ tax cuts and to the Trump administration’s deregulation platform; Asians, meanwhile, run the mom-and-pop stores and small businesses that suffer the most from growing government. As court cases about wedding cakes and healthcare coverage have shown, Democrats have waged federal and state war on the right of some religious people to refuse to obey laws supporting abortion rights or gay marriage; Asians are among the most fervent of evangelical Christians.

Why Asian Americans refuse to vote their interests remains a deep puzzle. Part of the problem rests at the feet of Republicans. Like past immigrants, many Asians first land in America’s great cities, but the Republican Party no longer seriously contests elections in the inner cities. Asian Americans who rely on municipal government for safe streets, business licenses and good schools may never meet a serious GOP politician. It would come as no surprise that these immigrants, especially those who have fled authoritarian nations, would join the Democratic Party, simply to get a fair shake.

More insidiously, Asian Americans may also be brainwashed by their respect for higher education. As the Harvard situation shows, some of the nation’s best schools are willing to corrupt merit and achievement in the service of a politically correct racial balance. Asians may come to think that ideology is as “true” as the scientific research produced by Nobel Prize-winning universities. Asians are fighting for admission to the very institutions that discount their talents and achievements.

Asian Americans can change their self-defeating politics simply by questioning their loyalty to the Democratic Party. The smartest voters keep themselves in play, choosing candidates who truly represent their self-interest, election by election. I believe politicians who support fair competition in the markets and in our schools — most likely Republicans — best represent Asian Americans. And Asian voters would benefit not only themselves but the American people as a whole by rejecting anyone who supports the use of race rather than merit to pick winners, losers and even Harvard students.