日志
与LAO网友就《为什么必须阻止加州限制华人法（英文）》的讨论 ... ... ... ... ... .. ...
热度 1 |||
网上辩论，难免有点火药味，大家悠着点看，哈哈。
我没有看到你的导读，而且认为也没有必要看。你的文章是自成一体的，所有的论点了论述都写在那里。我没有想到在读你文章是还要读你的导读。 你的文章中问题很 （比如文章标题），我只集中讲你对Grutter 先例的核心判案的不充分理解，或者对高院解读宪法的普通法理的缺陷。我也不是专业搞宪法学的，但SCA5牵扯到的问题很简单, 既，strict scrutiny所要求的强迫性的政府利益 ("compelling interest") 和细微设计出的实现手段(narrowly tailored means to promote that interest). 你的文章对这两点是否符合宪法的核心要求只字没有探讨和论证，对Hernandez 的立法历史和目的没有进行一对一的驳斥。请看你文章的三个主题：
I. Equal Protection is an Individual Right[.]
II. The Hernandez Problems, Their Causes and Race Neutral Solutions
III. The Hernandez Proposition Violates Equal Protection, is Detrimental to Latinos and Dangerous to All Californians[.]
非常关键的，既然Hernandez 引述的Grutter 和Fisher, 正常的法理思维就是要研究这两个先例是否能够支持SCA5的立法意图和精神。文章里只字没提。在我看来（个人观点），凭以上两点，文章也就失去了它应有的说服力，从逻辑推进角度看你已经走题了。
你的努力是应数据来反驳Hernandez 认为西籍under-represented，我认为这是你文章中非常有说服力的一点，并作出结论 "These figures match quite well to the population ratios of the two races" (page 3). 但是如果你紧跟Grutter，你就应该知道这是个non-issue (无关紧要的论点）。 Grutter 多数法官(the majority opinion) 的判案中明确指出 ：
To be narrowly tailored, a race-conscious admissions program cannot use a quota system—it cannot “insulat[e] each category of applicants with certain desired qualifications from competition with all other applicants.” Bakke, supra , at 315 (opinion of Powell, J.).
】
我的回应：
我证明了半天，根本不是LAO所理解的”来反驳Hernandez 认为西籍under-represented”。而是证明“Hernandez is demanding State imposed racial balancing.” 然后证明这一企图违宪。这当然不是一个non-issue。
以下引自我的文章：
【
Latinos represent 19.2% of the U.C. student body and 35% of the CSU student mass. Overall, Latinos represent over 31.4% of California public higher education. At every level, there is no question that diversity and "critical mass" have been attained by the Latinos. For Hernandez, the problem is that these percentages, and the U.C. ratio in particular, are lower than the 37.6% Latino population ratio in California. In other words, Hernandez is demanding State imposed racial balancing.
"[O]utright racial balancing... is patently
unconstitutional". Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US
】
另外，上面的一段话用31%与19.2%的数据证明 “diversity"与”critical mass"已经具备，这一点也是重要的，预先去掉了已经被最高法认可不违宪的一种compelling state interest. 所以光从这一点，这些数据也不是non-issue.
另外，LAO认为 “第14修正案并不保护 under-representedness” 属于基本逻辑错误。第14th修正案的句型是“No state shall...”。这个修正案不是保护，而是禁止。稍微有点逻辑就知道根本不能使用14th是否保护under-representedness的说法，而只能说某项法案或规则是否违背14th。搞清negative与positive的区别是该宪法辩论的关键。
至于lawandorder引用那段JUSTICE POWELL的话在目前的情况基本不靠谱。因为现在加州还根本没有制订具体录取的规则，只是要废除宪法中不准歧视的条款，具体规则估计到时可能是学校制订。而且HERNANDEZ明确说了不会搞QUOTA，因此引用POWELL那段针对具体大学录取规则的话，属于无的放矢。
所以，我请LAO虚心点，我费了这么多劲，写了份中文导读正是考虑读者英语程度限制，应该好好看看。英语不是你的native language，看起来吃力，完全正常也可以理解。那种对我的中文导读不屑一读的态度是固步自封。
http://zhenzhubay.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=2&do=blog&id=22573
http://zhenzhubay.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=2&do=blog&id=22573
我的补充：
Diversity与critical mass（在这个场合）是定性概念。以critical mass为例，是指一个群体的人不感到孤立，这个概念甚至不需要与其他族群进行比较，不需要量化。而under-representation是一个定量的相对比较结果。你你得有比例的比较才能确定是under，还是equal或者over。与追求equal-representation类同的词是balancing。Balance你去查查字典。
最高法院认为diversity可以作为compelling state interest追求，但追求 balancing就是违宪。
我的论文是证明（1）diversity已经实现了，不需要再追求；（2）Hernandez想搞的是balancing。
我文中这些都写得清清楚楚，但是看来读者如果一开始出现概念错误，就没招了。
你在文章中用了整个12个段落在揭示为什么Hernandez 所主张的Latino under-representedness 在事实上不成立。第2-3页， Point II (1),
1. Latinos occupy over 31% of the seats in California public college[.] (拜托，句子后面放个句号，即使在法律文书的论点标题上也要。）
[1] Since 2004, ...
[2] With the California Constitution being the obstacle for race based laws, ...
[3] Hernandez’s Senate Constitutional Amendment 5 (“SCA 5”) initially called to apply race preferences in public postsecondary education only, ...
[4] “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature ... The basis Hernandez proffered for his odious proposition is that Latinos are under-represented in California public colleges. Latinos have grown to 37.6% of the state population, and Hernandez alleges that his race is not getting commensurate dose of higher education.
[5] We are not bound to accept Hernandez’s assertions, and shall embark on independent fact checking.
[6] California State University (“CSU”) data shows [sic.] that ... These figures match quite well to the population of the two races.
[7] It’s hard to see how Mr. Hernandez can demonstrate gross under-representation of Latinos with a 35% Latino ratio at the CSU or the 31.4% ratio enrollment in all public colleges. ...
[8] As of Fall 2012, the U.S. enrolled 217,835 domestic students, Latino students totaled 41,810, or 19.2% of the domestic U.C. student body. Since 19.2 is substantially smaller than 37.6%, this must be a problem for Hernandez.
[9] The data also shows [sic.] that the number of degrees Latinos received in 2010 was only 22.38% of the total , while Asians took 15.48% of the degrees awarded. Thus, although Latinos occupied 31.4% of seats [sic.] in college lecturer halls, they were only getting 22.38% of the degrees. This must be another problem for Hernandez, as 22.38% is quite a bit less than 37.6%.
[10] A closer exanimation of the data further reveals another anomaly in the gender composition of Latino U.S. student body. ...
[11] Latino men are indeed getting substantially less college education than Latino women on average. ...
[12] Now that we understand why Hernandez wants racial and gender preferences in public education, we will perform an independent analysis of the causes of and explore race neutral solutions to the Hernandez problems.
用了12个段落来驳斥Hernandez under-representedness 的问题，用了12个段落来证明Latinos 并不是under-represented. 但是，高院从来没有认为under-representedness 本身就构成政府的compelling interest, 所以你的努力来证明Hernandez “problems” 本身就显示出你对Grutter 和高院解读宪法问题的不充分和不准确的理解和运用。
你反复列举你的第六页， 论点III (1) ，以及你引用Grutter的“[O]utright racial balancing ... is patently unconstitutional” 并不能说明你对Grutter 的正确理解。只要Hernandez 能提出种族和录取上有任何一点利益关联，就不是outright racial balancing，因此你的引用完全没有任何意义。Grutter 案例4个法官认为密西根大学法学院的录取政策违反宪法，5个法官认为没有。你的文章没有体现出首席法官Rehnquist执笔的反对意见 (“I agree with the Court that, ‘in the limited circumstance when drawing racial distinctions is permissible,’ the government must ensure that its means are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.”), 也只字没提为什么密大法学院的录取政策没有违宪。你所主张论证的race neutral solution (论点II, 小点3 “Race neutral alternatives exist to improve Latino performance” 被Grutter 多数法官明确驳斥，所以你的努力在法律上也是徒劳。（”The Court rejects the argument that the Law School should have used other race-neutral means to obtain the educational benefits of student body diversity, e.g., a lottery system or decreasing the emphasis on GPA and LSAT scores. Narrow tailoring does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative or mandate that a university choose between maintaining a reputation for excellence or fulfilling a commitment to provide educational opportunities to members of all racial groups.”)
你其他的几点评论不值得我浪费时间，你再下点功夫。
你列举了12段，都只是列出数据，精确定位并且在每一处都与37.6%对比。没有在任何地方否定under-representation。这对有点脑子的人来说都是明白着的，每一个比例都under 37.6%。而且，我在每一处低于37.6%的地方进行了评估。在一开始，我就说的非常清楚，这是在identify这位议员的问题所在，根本不是否定他的问题。
然后才是结论：（1）diversity 与 critical mass 具备；（2）Hernandez需要的是racial balancing。
至于你的其他论点，我已经驳斥，完全七窍通了六窍。把这个关键的issue当成non-issue。以你的这种智力水平要在我面前称大，你得转基因才行。靠你这种三脚猫功夫，可能还不如海明，真上法院遇上高手你一招就会斩于马下。
另外，Go back school and learn English. For your free education, I point you to the dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/data
“你列举了12段，都只是列出数据，精确定位并且在每一处都与37.6%对比。没有在任何地方否定under-representation。”
那你把你这几句话吞回去吧：
“Overall, Latinos represent over 31.4% of California public higher education. At every level, there is no question that racial diversity and ‘critical mass’ have been attained by the Latinos.”
在提醒你一次，对我的人身攻击掩盖不了你的文章的缺陷，poisoning the well 已经让你失去我对你以前所有的尊重。Bring it on.
For your arrogance, you have no idea what legal writing is.
唉，我都写得这么清楚，你还如此冥顽不化，真是没招。
另外，网上辩论，双方言语都有刺激之处，你又何必小姑娘似地叫屈？
”难道你以为[Diversity 和 critical mass]与[under-representation]是相同的概念？ 需要我解释他们的不同吗？“ -- 这就是你最好的反驳？如果不是那你为什么用巨大的篇幅论证Hernandez 的under-represented理论？ 如果不是，那你的" Overall, Latinos represent over 31.4% of California public higher education. At every level, there is no question that racial diversity and ‘critical mass’ have been attained by the Latinos.” 的数据事实是什么？
“另外，网上辩论，双方言语都有刺激之处，你又何必小姑娘似地叫屈？” 是你跑道我们这里撒野叫屈，反而倒打一耙。就这本事？
Diversity与critical mass（至少在这个场合）是定性概念。以critical mass为例，是指一个群体的人不感到孤立，这个概念甚至不需要与其他族群进行比较，不需要量化。而under-representation是一个定量的相对比较结果。你你得有比例的比较才能确定是under，还是equal或者over。与追求equal-representation类同的词是balancing。Balance你去查查字典。
最高法院认为追求diversity可以作为compelling state interest追求，但追求 balancing就是违宪。
我的论文是证明（1）diversity已经实现了，不需要再追求；（2）Hernandez想搞的是balancing。
我文中这些都写得清清楚楚，但是看来读者如果一开始出现概念错误，就没招了。
“最高法院认为追求diversity可以作为compelling state interest追求，但追求 balancing就是违宪。” -- 这个陈述并不准确。Grutter案例没有认为“追求diversity可以作为compelling state interest追求，” 而是 通过diversity 所带来的“educational benefits.” （ Diversity vs. the educational benefits of diversity， 种族多元化 vs. 种族多元化所带来的教育利益。） (见Grutter, “But the Law School defines its critical mass concept by reference to the substantial, important, and laudable educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce, including cross-racial understanding and the breaking down of racial stereotypes.”； 见2013 Fisher 案例最高法院对Grutter 的判决的陈述： “Narrow tailoring also requires a reviewing court to verify that it is ‘necessary’ for the university to use race to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.’”； 见我在这里2014-3-2 01:40 PM 发表的评论 （“相反，法学院的论点是通过学生整体性的多元化所产生的教育利益。 “))
“我的论文是证明（1）diversity已经实现了，不需要再追求；（2）Hernandez想搞的是balancing.” -- 两点都没有紧跟Grutter 和Fisher： (1) 不是diversity， 而是diversity 带给教育的利益。 (2) 我没有看到你diversity 和balancing 论述的区别，事实上，你对balancing 没有论证，只是个结论。（摘自你的导读： “（1）大学里西裔已经够多了，不存在需要特殊种族扶贫“ 如果这就是你论证的Hernandez 的balancing, 在我看来也是diversity. ）
先敲定这三个遗留问题，让盘观者看个明白。我再来针对你的新论点，看到底谁看懂了相关案例。
但我可以把Grutter的holding拷贝如下
“today we endorse Justice Powell's view that student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.” Grutter at 235. 请注意，这句话是以句号结束。
