美國高等教育優惠待遇何去何從－美國最高法院拒絕審理Hopwood v. Texas案之省思

What is the Future of the Affirmative Action Programs in U.S. Higher Education?-The Impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's Certiorari Denial of Hopwood v. Texas

王玉葉(Lydia Yu-Yeh Wang)

《歐美研究》 34卷3期 (2004/09) Pp. 457-509

https://doi.org/10.7015/JEAS.200409.0457

摘要

本文旨在追蹤美國優惠待遇爭議之後續發展，探討美國最高法院拒絕審理Hopwood v. Texas（1996）案之理由與影響。本文首先介紹美國最高法院第一件優惠待遇案件University of California v. Bakke（1978）的法律見解。這是第一件有關高等教育之優惠待遇案件，也是二十五年間唯一一件最高法院接受審理之案件，其法理見解並沒有被推翻，至今持續有效。次而介紹Hopwood案之背景、案情與訴訟程序，比較此案與Bakke案法律見解衝突之處，並探究美國最高法院拒絕審理此案之原因與其對美國社會的衝擊。最後檢討美國高等教育領域內之優惠待遇有無繼續存在的價值，應終結之或以其他方案代替之。

關鍵字

優惠待遇 ； 反向歧視 ； 多元化理論 ； 補償性理論 ； 百分比計劃

並列摘要

This essay traces the follow-up of the affirmative action controversy in America. It reviews the recent case of Hopwood v. Texas (1996), exploring the reason why the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari and the impact of this judgment on American society. The paper first introduces the holding of the first affirmative case reviewed by the Supreme Court, University of California v. Bakke (1978), also the first affirmative action case in the field of higher education, whose holding has not been yet overruled by later cases even after 25 years. The Hopwood case, its background, facts, lower courts' holdings, and appeals process are presented and compared to the holdings of Bakke, and the legal inconsistency and resulting contradictions between the two court levels are discussed. The denial of the U.S. Supreme Court to review Hopwood is significantly disadvantageous to the existence and growth of affirmative action programs in American universities nationwide. Lastly this paper assesses the value of affirmative action in the field of higher education. Should it be ended or amended, or substituted with some other race-neutral alternative programs? This is worthy of future consideration.

並列關鍵字

affirmative action ； reverse discrimination ； diversity rationale ； remedial rationale ； percentage plans

參考文獻

A Stunning Blow(1996).Chronicle of Higher Education.

Ackerman, T.(1996).Houston Chronicle.

Adams, M.(2001).Causation and responsibility in tort and affirmative action.Texas Law Review.79(3),643-702.

Adams, M.(2001).Isn`t it ironic? The central paradox at the heart of ``percentage plans``.Ohio St. Law Journal.62(6),1729-1780.

Aldave, B. B.(1996).Hopwood v. Texas: A victory for ``equality`` that denied reality-an afterword.St. Mary`s Law Journal.28(1),147-148.