This is a ‘part 1′ because this is a very big very thorny issue which concerns affirmative action and much more .這是一個'的一部分， 1 ' ，因為這是一個非常大的非常棘手的問題，關注的肯定行動和更多的工作 。 As such I will in the near future be writing a ‘part 2′ which directly addresses any AA-related concerns I’m having about this topic here… but for now, my understanding of the issue:這樣，我會在不久的將來，寫'的一部分， 2 ' ，其中直接涉及任何機管局有關的問題我在有關此主題在這裡… …但現在，我所理解的問題：

Pulitzer prize winner普立茲獎得主 Daniel Golden wrote a piece about “whether elite colleges give Asian-American students a fair shake” in last Saturday’s Wall Street Journal.丹尼爾黃金寫了一塊約“是否名牌大學給了亞洲和美國的學生一個公平的動搖”在上週六的華爾街日報。 It focused specifically on the case of one Jian Li, a Chinese permanent legal resident who went to a NJ public school having emigrated at age 4.它的重點是專門就案件之一，李健，中國常駐的合法居民，誰去了新澤西州公立學校後，移民在4歲。 Mr. Li recently filed a complaint against Princeton University for rejecting him through the Dept. Education’s Office for Civil Rights; he is currently a freshman at Yale.李先生最近提交了一份投訴，普林斯頓大學的拒絕，他通過研究教育辦公室的公民權利，他目前是一年級在耶魯。 (nb, this is not a tort case, it is a complaint about what Li feels was discrimination.) （注意，這不是一個民事侵權案件，這是一個投訴什麼李覺得是歧視） 。

This is an issue that throws a lot of people off sometimes, because some people confuse a) Affirmative action with b) race-based discrimination.這是一個問題拋出一個很多人的小康，有時，因為有些人混淆一）平權行動與二）基於種族的歧視。 Private universities in the United States are not required to have the same ‘objective’ qualifications that businesses or real estate have; race discrimination is only happening if there a pattern (in this case acceptance / rejection) unique to one race or ethnicity on the basis of unfair (nonstandard) comparisons–hence the problem with Berkeley’s law program back in the early 90s, which took Asians out of the general pool and compared them against each other.私立大學在美國是不須有相同的'客觀'資格的企業或房地產有;種族歧視，只是發生的事情，如果有一個模式（在這種情況下接受/拒絕）獨特的一個種族或民族的基礎上不公平的（非標準）比較-因此，問題與大學柏克萊分校的法律程式，早在90年代初，這是亞洲人擺脫一般游泳池和比較，他們對對方。


A quote from the article to start us off here:引用的文章開始我們小康的位置：

The Office for Civil Rights initially rejected Mr. Li’s complaint due to “insufficient” evidence.辦公室的公民權利最初拒絕了李先生的投訴，由於“不足”的證據。 Mr. Li appealed, citing a white high-school classmate admitted to Princeton despite lower test scores and grades.李先生呼籲為由，白色的高校的同班同學承認，普林斯頓，儘管較低的測驗分數及職系。 The office notified him late last month that it would look into the case.辦公室通知他上個月底，它將研究的情況。

His complaint seeks to suspend federal financial assistance to Princeton until the university “discontinues discrimination against Asian-Americans in all forms by eliminating race preferences, legacy preferences, and athlete preferences.” Legacy preference is the edge most elite colleges, including Princeton, give to alumni children.他的投訴，旨在暫停聯邦財政援助，以普林斯頓大學，直到大學“終止歧視亞裔美國人在一切形式消除種族偏好，傳統的偏好，和運動員偏好” 。遺留下來的偏好是最邊緣的精英學院，包括普林斯頓大學，給校友子女。 The Office for Civil Rights has the power to terminate such financial aid but usually works with colleges to resolve cases rather than taking enforcement action.辦公室的公民權利有權力終止這種財政援助，但通常與工程學院，以解決個案，而非採取執法行動。

That more or less sets the stage, but doesn’t answer my biggest question about Mr. Li’s claims: Jian Li had a 2400 SAT I and excellent SAT IIs, but what else was there?更多或更少集階段，但不回答我的最大的問題約李官奇的索賠：李健了2400年星期六，我和良好的星期六的非法入境者，但還有什麼是有？ He had good grades, so he was clearly academically qualified.他曾好成績，因此他顯然是學歷。 Yet how else does he compare to this white applicant from his school that was accepted?然而，否則，如何，他是否比較這份白皮書申請人從他的學校，這是接受呢？ Reading about this story, I just want more facts, and I can’t seem to find them anywhere.閱讀關於這個故事，我只想更多的事實，我似乎無法找到它們的任何地方。 While considering the subjective criteria that Princeton and other elite US schools use to gauge applicants, numbers alone are not enough to form a complete comparison.同時，考慮到主觀的標準，普林斯頓大學和其他精英，美國學校使用，以了解申請人的，數字本身是不夠的，以形成一個完整的比較。

Next question: Why did Li sue Princeton, rather than Penn, Stanford, MIT, or Harvard, all of which rejected him (unfairly, he felt) after wait listing him?接下來的問題：為什麼李控告普林斯頓，而非西恩潘，斯坦福大學，麻省理工學院或哈佛大學，所有這些拒絕他（不公平，他認為）後，等待上市的他呢？

“He ultimately focused his complaint against Princeton after reading a 2004 study by three Princeton researchers concluding that an Asian-American applicant needed to score 50 points higher on the SAT than other applicants to have the same chance of admission to an elite university.” “他最終的重點是他的投訴後，普林斯頓大學讀2004年的一項研究是由三普林斯頓的研究人員得出結論認為，一個亞洲和美國的申請人需要評分50分的較高的SAT考試比其他申請人有相同的機會入學的精英大學” 。

I’ve read that study; it’sa perfectly good study, but it doesn’t negate the fact that at the ‘top-tier’ American schools stats are not the only thing being considered.我已閱讀研究;這是絕對良好的學習，但這並不否定事實，即在'頂級'美國學校的統計是不是唯一的事，正在考慮中。 This is why when affirmative action is banned in some public institutions, notably the University of California (which we have data for) the Asian-American enrollment goes up–these schools rely on stats alone much more than do these top schools.這就是為什麼當扶持行動是禁止在一些公共機構，特別是美國加州大學（我們的數據）亞洲和美國的報名上升-這些學校的依賴於統計，僅遠不止這些頂尖學校。

So, here is what it looks like to me, at first glance: Li has a 2400 SAT and great stats overall, and is waitlisted at then rejected by lots of good schools before two also very great schools accept him (Yale and Caltech). 所以，這裡是什麼，它看起來像對我來說，乍看之下：李有2400星期六和偉大的統計總體而言，是在輪候，然後拒絕了很多好學校之前，雙方還非常大學校接受他（耶魯大學和加州理工學院） 。 What happens next I don’t understand.接下來該怎麼做我不明白。 HYPSM are known to reject plenty of perfect scorers–where exactly the basis for discrimination comes in I don’t understand, because these schools do not operate on the basis of stats alone. hypsm是眾所周知的拒絕很多完美的分手，哪裡正是歧視的基礎是在我不明白，因為這些學校沒有的基礎上運作的統計，單。 They care about extracurricular and leadership and all these things.他們關心的課外活動和領導以及所有這些東西。 I can see a plausible concern in general, but not one stemming from his case alone.我可以看到一個可能的關注，在一般，但沒有一個源於他的案件。

“Ah,” you say, “they do care about those things, but perhaps they just use them as an excuse or subjective ‘reason’ to reject those applicants they feel are undesirable in too great a quantity–perhaps Asians are now in the same position that Jews once were!” “啊， ”你說， “他們所關心的那些事情，但也許他們只是利用他們作為藉口，或主觀的'理由 ' 拒絕的申請人，他們覺得是不可取的 ，在過大的數量，也許亞洲人現在在相同的猶太人的立場，即一旦被“ ！ See again Malcomb Gladwell’s old piece in the New Yorker見再次malcomb格萊德威爾的舊片，在新的紐約客 on modern elite college admissions which alludes back to Jerome Karabel’s The Chosen (I keep plugging that book because it keeps being good!).對現代精英大學招生，其中提到了回杰羅姆卡拉伯的選擇（我一直堵這本書，因為它一直被好！ ） 。 We had an assembly speaker who brought this up when discussing bias in objective hiring–people find “excuses” to hire one candidate (towards the bias, ie Caucasian) regardless of whether that particular ‘excuse’ was being sought after in the applicant process (ie, experience, or skill, or whatever difference can be found between the two candidates).我們有一個議會議長誰帶來了這個時候討論的偏見，在客觀租用-人民找到“藉口”聘請一名候選人（對偏見，即白人）不論該特別是'藉口'正在尋求後，在申請人的進程（即，經驗或技能，或什麼差異，可以發現兩者之間候選人） 。 But…但…

Not necessarily.不一定。 Show me proof–show me the memos and letters we have from old college presidents and admissions folks saying that there were too many Jews enrolling–show me that for Asian-Americans.顯示我證明給我看備忘錄和信件，我們從舊的大學校長和招生鄉親說，有太多的猶太人招生-查看我說，為亞裔美國人。 I don’t have the evidence of a technical, legal discrimination–though I am happy to see there are sort of inquiries being made about it.我手邊沒有證據的技術，法律上的歧視-雖然我很高興看到有排序的調查正在取得它。

However, this really only scratches the surface, because this is only looking at the purest facts I could find about the issue.不過，這真的只有刮痕，表面上，因為這是只有看精純的事實，我可以找到有關的問題。 There is a bigger issue–the social ramifications of this question, and how Mr. Li’s complaint jives with other proposals, initiatives, lobbying groups and so forth.有一個更大的問題的社會後果，這個問題，以及如何李先生的投訴jives與其他的建議，倡議，遊說團體，等等。 The internet is互聯網 buzzing熱鬧 about this article, actually.有關這篇專題文章的，其實。 I’ll be writing more about it, but I was just trying to skirt the ‘AA good / bad’ question in this post and just talk about whether or not I thought Li necessarily had a case here.我會寫更多地了解它，但我只是想穿裙子的'機管局好/壞'的問題，在這個職位和公正的談論是否或不是，我以為李一定有一個案件在這裡。 As an African American Jew, I think I have a slightly different perspective on this matter than Mr. Li or some of my peers.作為一個非洲裔美國猶太人，我覺得我有一個略有不同的角度來看這件事比李先生或我的一些同儕。 You’ll just have to wait a little bit to hear it…您只需要等待一點點聽到…