論多元文化主義下種族優惠性差別待遇的法正當性基礎 ：以臺灣原住民學生高等教育升學優待措施為中心

The Legal Justification for Racial Affirmative Action on the Ground of Multiculturalism: Focus on the Preferential Treatment for Aboriginal Student's Admission to Higher Education in Taiwan

涂予尹(Yu-Yin Tu)

指導教授 ： 林子儀

共同指導教授 ： 黃昭元(Jau-Yuan Hwang)

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/博士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.01660

摘要

原住民學生升學優待制度，是臺灣實施時間最久，也最富爭議的原住民族教育政策之一。從國治時期以來，政府即已比照邊疆地區學生升學優待的方式，獎勵原住民學生升學，但是這項制度的法制化，毋寧是極為晚近的事。1990年代中期的修憲，以及其後原住民族教育法的訂定，推促了政府對於這項制度思考方向的轉變，從把原住民當作統治客體、把升學優待制度當作殖民統治的方略，漸漸轉型為立於原住民的立場思考：不但將升學優待的要件明確化，同時還將「文化語言能力證明考試」的制度連結至優待要件中，除了補償原住民過去長期所受到的歧視以外，並且寓有維護多元文化、促使原住民族文化及語言永續發展等意旨。
原住民學生升學優待制度的變革，背後有一項關鍵卻又說不清楚的因素，就是憲法增修條文第10條第11項所規定的「肯定多元文化」條款。評價升學優待辦法的正當性基礎，除了憲法第7條的平等權規定以外，增修條文第10條第11項的精神也必須參酌。然而，「肯定多元文化」條款究竟該怎麼解讀？其對於現行原住民學生升學優待制度到底會如何評價？本文的寫作目的，即希望能一方面透過對於英語世界「多元文化主義」相關理論的耙梳，釐清多元文化主義以及「肯定多元文化」條款的意義，另一方面則從平等權規定揉合多元文化主義相關理論的要旨，對於現行「原住民學生升學保障辦法」中的升學優待規定的合法性與正當性進行評析。
除了在第1章說明本文的研究動機、研究範圍、文獻回顧、研究方法與核心議題及研究架構之外，第2章將說明我國原住民學生升學優待制度的概況、其相關法制沿革，以及問題的爭議點。第3章則是借鏡美國聯邦最高法院針對大學（包括學士後教育）入學許可的優惠性差別待遇措施所作成的相關判決，分析其所面臨的問題點，以及法院為處理問題所採取的說理內容。第4章則是介紹多元文化主義的理論緣起、主要學說流派，以及本文採取多元文化主義分析高等教育領域種族優惠性差別待遇法正當性基礎的理由。第5章至第7章則是分別以Charles Taylor、Iris Marion Young及Will Kymlicka的「肯認政治論」、「差異政治論」及「自由多元文化主義」為基礎，分別說明各項多元文化主義代表學說的主要內容、所受到的批判與各自的回應，並且提出各項學說對於我國原住民學生高等教育升學優待措施正當性議題的可能看法。第8章則是歸納Taylor、Young及Kymlicka學說的共同點、自由主義對於多元文化主義的挑戰，以及多元文化主義對於自由主義各項批判的回應，最後則是歸結到多元文化主義對於現代憲法基本人權譜系帶來的最大衝擊，亦即說明集體權利如何見容於個人權利為主軸的現代基本人權體系。最後則在第9章提出結論。

關鍵字

優惠性差別待遇 ； 多元文化主義 ； 原住民 ； 升學優待措施 ； 肯認政治論 ； 差異政治論 ； 自由多元文化主義

並列摘要

The preferential treatment for aboriginal students’ admission to higher education is one of the most enduring yet controversial educational policies in Taiwan. Although the government has carried out preferential treatment programs for aboriginal students in the light of educational preferential treatments for frontier students since the KMT’s reign, it just formally legalized these programs for less than 30 years. The Amending of the Constitution in mid-1990s and the following promulgation of Aboriginal Education Act pushed the government to transform its basic attitude toward these programs, from taking the preferential treatments as part of colonizing strategies to standing on the position of aboriginals. The requirements to preferential treatments were further specified and linked to the cultural/ linguistic proficiency test. One the one hand, the preferential treatment is to compensate past discrimination suffered by the aboriginals. On the other hand, the linkage between preferential treatments for aboriginal students’ entering into higher education and cultural/ linguistic proficiency test is also designed to protect cultural diversity as well as promote sustainable development of aboriginal cultures and languages.
There is a key yet not fully deliberated factor hidden behind the transformation of aboriginal students’ preferential treatments for higher education, the promulgation of Article 10, Section 11 of the Amendment to the Constitution, which affirms the value of cultural diversity. Therefore, in addition to Article 7 of the Constitution, the above article should also be taken into consideration in assessing the legitimacy of aboriginal students’ preferential treatments for higher education. However, how to properly interpret the meaning of “cultural diversity affirmation” clause remains unclear. The goal of this dissertation is to clarify the meaning of Article 10, Section 11 of the Amendment to the Constitution by analyzing relevant theories of multiculturalism on the one hand, and assess the legitimacy issues of aboriginal students’ preferential treatments for higher education on the other.
In addition to explain the motive, scope, main references, approach, and key issues of this dissertation on chapter 1, I analyzed current legal institution, history and main issues of the preferential treatment for aboriginal students’ entering into higher education on chapter 2. On chapter 3, I discussed relevant cases decided by the Supreme Court of the U.S., analyzed the issues faced and approached taken by the Court as a reflection and reference of issues in Taiwan. Then, on chapter 4, I illustrate the origin of multiculturalism by introducing communitarian key criticism of traditional liberalism, generalize main schools of multiculturalism, and explain the reason why I take multiculturalism as an approach to analyze the legitimacy of preferential treatment for aboriginal students’ entering into higher education in Taiwan. In the following, I introduced 3 main schools of multiculturalism, politics of recognition by Charles Taylor, politics of difference by Iris Marion Young, and liberal multiculturalism by Will Kymlicka, as well as primary criticism, their responses, and their standpoints of preferential treatments for aboriginal students’ entering into higher education in Taiwan on chapter 5 to 7 respectively. On chapter 8, I sum up several commonalities of above 3 main schools of multiculturalism, criticism they received from liberals, and their ideas of accommodating collective right within the individual right-oriented basic right institution in modern constitutional states. On chapter 9, I made some conclusions as legal advices for how we revise the current preferential treatment institution in the next step.

並列關鍵字

Affirmative Action ； Multiculturalism ； Aboriginals ； Preferential Treatment ； Politics of Recognition ； Politics of Difference ； Liberal Multiculturalism

參考文獻

尤哈尼˙伊斯卡卡夫特（2002）。《原住民族覺醒與復振》。臺北：前衛。

許育典（2006）。《憲法》。臺北：元照。

黃昭元（2010）。〈平等理論的演進與典範變遷〉，民間司法改革基金會（編），《大法官，給個說法！3》，頁5-18。臺北：新學林。

謝世忠（1987）。《認同的污名：臺灣原住民的族群變遷》。臺北：自立晚報社。

李震山（2005），〈論憲政改革與基本權利保障〉，《國立中正大學法學集刊》，18期，頁183-252。