美国肯定性行动：历史演变与争论

发布时间：2018-09-15 20:07

【摘要】： 美国内战虽然将黑人从奴隶制的束缚中解放出来,但并没有给他们带来真正的平等。黑人争取平等权利的斗争使美国人,尤其是美国政府认识到种族歧视给黑人带来的痛苦以及对社会造成的危害。20世纪60年代中期,为了缓和国内紧张的种族关系,平息大规模黑人骚乱,美国政府启动了肯定性行动,在就业、教育及政府合同等领域对少数种族及女性等社会不利群体给予某些优待和照顾,以期消除种族歧视、性别歧视及其影响,促进真正的种族平等和性别平等。由于没有一部专门的法律对肯定性行动作出全面而权威的阐释,40多年来,人们对肯定性行动的理解一直随社会环境和政治环境的变化而变化。历届总统及其政府根据自身需要理解肯定性行动,并推动或阻挠其实施,各级法院尤其是最高法院也通过一个个案例对肯定性行动作出了不同的解释。肯定性行动的初衷主要是补偿历史上的种族歧视给少数种族造成的伤害,帮助所有遭受歧视的公民获得平等的机会,从而改善其社会地位和经济状况。这一政策带有一定的强制性并取得了实质性的效果。大批少数种族成员和女性进入了传统上由白人男性垄断的行业和职业,并更多地接受了高等教育。肯定性行动对缓解种族矛盾和帮助弱势群体摆脱困境起到了积极的作用。但这种针对特定对象的优待与照顾同美国人“机会均等”的价值观相冲突,因而40多年来关于肯定性行动存在和实施的必要性的争论从未间断过。支持者认为仅仅消除歧视无法弥补长期歧视给弱势群体造成的伤害,无法为其带来真正的平等,因而有必要对其进行补偿,通过提供特殊的优待和照顾增强其竞争力,使他们能够与其他公民在同一起点公平竞争。为了实现这一目的,即使是配额制(quotas)或预留制(set asides)等措施,即在就业、入学、合同授予等方面按照其在一定范围内总人口中所占的比例为少数民族、女性等保留一部分名额或预留一部分合同的做法也是可以采取的。他们还认为肯定性行动能够促进种族多样化,从而为人们创造更加有利、轻松的学习环境。在经济全球化的背景下,种族多样化还可以使人们通过与不同种族人群的接触增强其竞争力,并进一步消除种族歧视,促进种族和谐,创造良好的社会环境。然而反对者认为这种以种族和性别为基础的优待与照顾有悖于美国宪法的平等保护原则,也是1964年民权法案所不允许的。以种族和性别为依据,对部分原本在竞争中处于劣势的人给予照顾,而把一些有竞争实力的人拒之门外的做法与美国民主、平等的原则相背离,是对非照顾群体成员的反向歧视。另外,反对肯定性行动的人还认为,由于许多少数种族成员已经成为中产阶级甚至上层阶级,同时未曾受过种族歧视伤害的新移民不断进入美国,仅仅基于种族因素的肯定性行动实际照顾了大批不再需要照顾或者不具备受补偿条件的人。这对非照顾群体、贫困白人以及处于社会最底层的少数种族成员都是不公平的。这些争论日趋激烈,特别是90年代中期以来,有的州已经部分或全部取消了以种族和性别为基础的肯定性行动计划。无论是支持者还是反对者都希望能找到更加可行的替代性措施。有人认为应该以社会经济地位作为衡量是否给予照顾的标准。由于黑人等少数种族在贫困人口中的比例较高,因而支持者和反对者都认为这种基于经济地位或贫困状况的肯定性行动不仅能使少数种族受益,同时还可以避开种族和性别等极易引发争议的因素。但是,由于根深蒂固的种族偏见和性别歧视,处于同等社会经济地位的少数种族成员很可能难以同白人竞争,女性也不太可能同男性公平竞争。所以这种基于社会经济地位的肯定性行动方案很难从根本上解决美国社会中的种族歧视与性别不平等的现状。在一些已经取消肯定性行动的州,为了保持少数种族及女性等弱势群体成员的入学比例,大学招生过程中推行了百分比计划。即各有资质的中学里,成绩排名在班级前X%的毕业生自动获得其所在州某些大学的入学资格。由于处于弱势群体的少数种族学生往往就读于教学质量差的中学,因而人们希望百分比计划能帮助他们降低入学的竞争压力,增加其入学机会,从而整体保持或提高该群体在大学新生总人数中的比例。然而研究表明,结果恰恰相反。在得克萨斯、加利福尼亚、佛罗里达等实行百分比计划的州,黑人等少数种族成员进入大学的人数并不能有所增加,尤其是同90年代中期相比,他们在大学新生中所占的比例甚至有所下降。此外,对于在教学质量高的中学就读的学生来讲,虽然他们的成绩超过其他学校的优等生,但因为本校竞争激烈,排名低于前X%,因而无法进入理想的大学,甚至连公平竞争的机会都没有。这对他们来讲是极不公平的。在当今的美国社会,种族歧视和性别偏见依然存在,解决这些问题的路还很长。简单地取代以种族和性别为基础的肯定性行动无法从根本上消除这些社会问题。作为一项政府性的措施,肯定性行动在40多年的过程中起到了一定的积极作用,但在具体的贯彻执行过程中也的确存在一些问题,需要进一步完善和改进。目前还没有更加成熟的、能更好地解决社会歧视和社会不公正的替代性措施,因而美国暂时还不能取消肯定性行动,而是要如克林顿总统所言,对其进行“修正”,使之能够更好地服务于弱势群体,服务于美国社会,从而更快地实现种族平等。
[Abstract]:Although the American Civil War liberated the blacks from the bondage of slavery, it did not bring them real equality. The struggle for equal rights made Americans, especially the American government, aware of the suffering of racial discrimination and its harm to society. In the mid-1960s, to ease domestic tensions. In order to eliminate racial discrimination, sexism and its influence, and promote genuine racial equality and gender equality, the United States government launched affirmative action to give preferential treatment and care to minorities and disadvantaged groups in the fields of employment, education and government contracts.
In the absence of a specific law providing a comprehensive and authoritative interpretation of affirmative action, people's understanding of affirmative action has been changing with the social and political environment for more than 40 years. The high court has also made different interpretations of affirmative action through various cases.
The primary purpose of affirmative action is to compensate for the damage caused by racial discrimination in history, to help all citizens who suffer from racial discrimination get equal opportunities, and thus to improve their social and economic status. This policy is mandatory and has achieved substantial results. Large numbers of ethnic minority members and women enter Affirmative action has played a positive role in alleviating racial conflicts and helping disadvantaged groups get out of their predicament. But this preference and care for specific targets conflict with the American value of "equal opportunity," and thus has been relevant for more than 40 years. Supporters argue that eliminating discrimination alone does not compensate for the damage caused by long-term discrimination and does not bring about real equality for vulnerable groups, so it is necessary to compensate for it and enhance its competitiveness by providing special preferences and care. Other citizens compete fairly at the same starting point. To achieve this goal, even quotas or set asides are used to reserve a part of the quota or a part of the contract in terms of employment, enrollment, contract award, etc., in proportion to the total population within a certain range. They also believe that affirmative action can promote racial diversity and thus create a more conducive and relaxed learning environment for people. In the context of economic globalization, racial diversity can also enable people to enhance their competitiveness through contacts with different racial groups, and further eliminate racial discrimination and promote race. Harmony creates a good social environment. Opponents, however, argue that this racial and gender-based preference and care is contrary to the principle of equal protection in the U.S. Constitution and is not allowed under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In addition, opponents of affirmative action argue that many ethnic minorities have become middle-class or even upper-class, and that new immigrants who have not been harmed by racial discrimination are constantly entering the United States. This is unfair to non-caregivers, poor whites, and members of the lowest ethnic minority. These arguments have intensified, especially since the mid-1990s, when some states have been partially divided. Or the abolition of affirmative action plans based on race and gender.
Supporters and opponents alike want to find more viable alternatives. Some argue that social and economic status should be used as a measure of whether or not care is given. The affirmative action not only benefits minorities, but also avoids controversial factors such as race and gender. However, due to deep-rooted racial prejudice and gender discrimination, ethnic minorities with equal social and economic status are likely to have difficulty competing with whites and women are unlikely to compete fairly with men. So this affirmative action program based on socio-economic status is hard to fundamentally address racial discrimination and gender inequality in American society.
In some states that have abolished affirmative action, in order to maintain minority and female enrollment, universities have introduced percentage schemes. In secondary schools with different qualifications, graduates with a score of X% in the top class automatically qualify for admission to certain universities in their state. Minority students tend to attend low-quality secondary schools, so it is hoped that the percentage plan will help them reduce competitive pressures and increase their chances of enrollment, thereby maintaining or increasing the overall proportion of this group in the total number of College freshmen. But research shows the opposite. In states such as Florida, where percentage programs are in place, there is no increase in the number of black and other ethnic minorities entering universities, especially when compared with the mid-1990s, their percentage of freshmen is even lower. In addition, for students in high-quality secondary schools, though their grades are higher than those in the mid-1990s Excellent students from other schools, but because of the fierce competition and ranking below the top X percent, are unable to enter the ideal university, or even the opportunity to compete fairly. This is extremely unfair to them.
In today's American society, racial discrimination and gender prejudice still exist, and there is still a long way to go to solve these problems. Simply replacing affirmative action based on race and gender can not fundamentally eliminate these social problems. At present, there are no more mature alternative measures to better address social discrimination and social injustice, so the United States can not cancel affirmative action for the time being, but as President Clinton said, to "fix" it. It can serve the vulnerable better, serve the American society, and realize racial equality more quickly.
【学位授予单位】：中国人民解放军外国语学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2006
【分类号】：K712

【相似文献】