美国平权措施的宪法争议--析联邦最高法院的两项判决

美国平权措施,从上一世纪七十年代以来,受到白人挑战,白人提出这是对白人的不平等,违反了宪法的平等权.这一宪法争议特别反映在大学入学政策上.近期,美国联邦最高法院对此作了两项判决:一是"格鲁特对伯林杰"案(Grutter v. Bollinger),针对密歇根大学法学院的入学政策;一是"格拉斯对伯林杰"案(Gratz v. Bollinger),针对密歇根大学部的入学政策.平权措施主要宪法依据是美国宪法第14条修正案.最高法院在适用此项宪法原则时有重要例外,一是为了保护国家利益出发;一是为弥补历史上的歧视后果.最高法院又宣布,凡使用种族作区分标准的法律,必须运用"严格的透视"和"紧迫的利益".据此,上述两项新判决,都有利于"种族多元化"和平权措施.这是美国当前对平权措施宪法争议的最新认定.

Constitutional Dispute on Affirmative Action in the United States --An Analysis of Supreme Court's Two Decisions

Since the 1970s, affirmative action in the U.S. has been challenged by the white. The white allege that this measure is racial discrimination against them, which, in turn, violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal rights. This constitutional dispute has been raised mostly on the issue of admission policy of several universities. Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States made two important decisions respectively on Grutter v. Bollinger case, in which the law school's admission policy in Michigan University is under question, and on Gratz v. Bollinger case, in which the undergraduate admission policy of Michigan University is under question. The petitioners sued the law school and the university by referring to Protection Clause provided in the 14 th Amendment of the Constitution. In applying the 14 th Amendment, the Supreme Court allows two important exceptions: either further governmental interests or remedy the historical discrimination. The Supreme Court then reaffirms that any governmental action based on racial classification is subject to "strict scrutiny" and shall be necessary to further a "compelling interest". These two decisions confirm the Affirmative Action and the value of "racial diversity" and equal rights measures. They are the most updated decisions of the constitutional dispute on Affirmative Action in the United States.