难道我们不值得，根据 我们的优异，我们的成就Don't we deserve to be considered according to our excellences,our achievements,我们的造诣，和我们的努力工作，来评价我们吗？our accomplishments, our hard work?我们的这项权利，难道不是岌岌可危了吗？Isn't that the right at stake?现在，我们也听到了，对这种观点的一个回答Now we've already heard an answer to that argument.不，她没有这项权利。No, she doesn't have the right.没有人是应该得到录取的Nobody deserves to be admitted.这让我们重新回到了 道义应得与合法期望的问题Notice how this gets us back to the issue of desert versus entitlement.它们主张，Hopwood在此处没有个人权利They're arguing there is no individual right that Hopwood has.不能根据 在她看来是重要的某个标准，来决定说 她是应该得到录取的。She doesn't deserve to be admitted according to any particular set of criteria that she believes to be important.包括 只参考 她取得成绩和努力 的这项标准Including criteria that have only to do with her efforts and achievements.为什么不能这样呢？Why not?我认为是，这里隐含地I think implicit, in this argument,有些类似Rawls 拒绝 把道义应得，作为分配正义的基础。is something like Rawls' rejection of moralde sert as the basis of distributive justice.是的，一旦哈佛确定了自己的使命Yes, once Harvarddefines its mission根据这一使命，来制定它的录取政策and designs its admission policy in the light of its mission,适合这些标准，符合资格的人们people are entitled, who fit those criteria,他们就有权利被录取they are entitled to be admitted.但根据这个观点But according to this argument,首先， 一开始 哈佛大学为自己定下的使命no one deserves that Harvard college define its mission以及为自己设定的录取标准and design its admission criteria in the first place,没有人值得要求哈佛，制定的录取标准 刚好是他们的优势。in a way that prizes the qualities they happen to have in abundance.无论这些优势是 测试得分或中学成绩Whether those qualities are test scores or grades或是 弹钢琴的能力or the ability to play the piano,或是 能做一个好的中卫or to be a good middle linebacker,或是 来自衣阿华州or to come from Iowa,或是 来自某个特定的少数族群or to come from a certain minority group.你怎样看待关于 “平权运动”的这场争论So you see how this debate about affirmative action,特别是多样化的说法especially the diversity argument,这就回到了 权利的问题takes us back to the question of rights,接下来，我们就进一步回溯到，which in turn takes us back tothe question of道义应得 是否是分配正义的基础 这个问题上来whether moral desert is or is not the basisfor distributive justice.请在周末思考这个问题，我们下次将继续讨论。Think about that over the weekend and we'll continue this discussion next time.“猫被创造出来就是为了吃老鼠，老鼠被创造出来就是给猫吃。而整个自然界被创造出来是为了证明造物主的智慧。” -------恩格斯 对目的论的批评上节课，在结束时When we ended last time,我们曾思考了，关于“平权运动” 的正反两方的理由we were considering arguments for and against affirmative action.在录取中 将种族作为因素之一 来考虑Counting race as a factor in admissions.并且，在讨论的过程中And, in the course of the discussion,出现了三种观点three arguments emerged,对于“平权运动”的三种观点three arguments for affirmative action.其中一种观点认为，种族和民族背景 应当被考虑在内One of them was the idea that race and ethnic background should count这是为了修正 测试得分和中学成绩（背后所代表）的真正含义as a way of correcting for the true meaning of test scores and grades.这样才更准确的衡量出，那些分数和数字所代表的 学术潜力。Getting a more accurate measure of the academic potential, those scores, those numbers represent.第二种，是被我们称作 “补偿论”的观点Second, was what we called"the compensatory argument".这种观点认为，这是补偿 过去的错误，和过去的非正义行为The idea of righting past wrongs, past injustice.第三种，则是多元化观点And the third was the diversity argument.在1990年代，当Cheryl Hopwood 在联邦法院上，And when Cheryl Hopwood in the 1990s challenged对德州大学法学院的“消除歧视”的录取政策，提出质疑时，the University of Texas Law School's affirmative action program, in the federal courts,德州大学也提出了 另外一个版本的多元化理由。the University of Texas made another version of the diversity argument.他们认为，德州大学法学院的 更远大的社会目标和社会使命Saying that the broader social purpose, the social mission of the University of Texas Law School,是培养出 法律界和政界的领导者、is to produce leaders, in the legal community, in the political community,法官、律师、和议员among judges, lawyers, legislators,因此，培养那些 能反映出 德州的背景、经历、种族和民族组成 的领导人，and therefore it's important that we produce leaders, who reflect the background,and the experience,是十分重要的。and the ethnic and the racial composition of the state of Texas.服务于更加广泛的社会使命，是十分重要的It's important for serving our wider social mission.这就是 德州大学法学院的观点That was the University of Texas Law School's argument.接着，我们思考了 对多元化理由的反驳意见And then we considered an objection to the diversity argument多元化的观点，其实就是以社会使命、大众利益为名 而提出的。which after all is an argument in the name of the social mission, the common good.我们知道Rawls 没有简单地认为We saw that Rawls does not simply believe公众利益或大众福利 应当优先that arguments of the common good or the general welfare should prevail哪怕在促进公众利益的过程中，要侵犯个人的权利。if individual rights must be violated inthe course of promoting the common good.你们还记得，上节课结束时，我们 对多样化理由的质问You remember that was the question, the challenge, to the diversity rationale that we were considering when we finished last time.而且我们开始讨论 “它可能威胁到 我们的什么权利？”And we began to discuss the question "Well, what right might be at stake"?也许这项权利是要求决定我们是否被录取的因素，必须是我们所能控制的Maybe the right to be considered according to factors within one's control.或许，这就是Cheryl Hopwood 隐含表达的观点。Maybe this is the argument that Cheryl Hopwood implicitly was making.她无法改变 自己是白人 这个现实She can't help the fact that she is white.为什么 她是否能进法学院 的可能性Why should her chance at getting into law school取决于 一种她无法控制的因素呢？depend on a factor she can't control?接着， Hannah在上此 进一步提出And then Hannah who is advancing an argument last time认为哈佛有权利 以任何方式确定自己的使命said Harvard has the rightto define its mission any way it wants to,因为 它是一所私立机构it's a private institution.而且，唯有 哈佛明确自己的使命 之后And it's only once Harvard defines its mission我们才知道 （录取标准里）考察哪些品质that we can identify the qualities that count.因此，没有侵犯任何权利。So no rights are being violated.现在，怎么看这个观点？Now, what about that argument?我想听听 对它的反对意见What I would like to do is to hear objections to that reply.然后，看看其他人 能否作出回答And then, see whether others have an answer.是的。告诉我们你的名字Yes?And tell us your name.Da. 好的。上次你发过言Da.- Da, right you spoke up last time.你怎么回应这个观点How do you answer that argument?好的，我认为 这里有两点Well, I think there was two things in there.其一，私立机构 可以根据自己的需要 来确定自己的使命。One of them was that a private institution could define its mission however it wants.但这并不意味.... 不管这个使命是什么，都是正确的But that doesn't make however it defines it,right,譬如，我可以把 募集世界上所有的钱 作为我的个人使命。like I could define my personal mission as I want to collect all the money in the world.但这可以称之为一个 好的使命吗？But does that make it even a good mission?因此，你不能说 因为这所大学是一家私立机构So you can't like, you can't say that just because a college is a private institution它就可以任意地确定（它的使命）it can just define it as whatever it wants,你还是得思考，它所确定的方式 是否恰当you still have to thing about, what are the way it's defining it, it's right.而且在“平权运动”这个案子里，许多人提到And in the case of affirmative action, a lot of people have said that这里面 牵涉了许多其他因素，since there's a lot of other factors involved,为什么再多加 人种 这个因素就不可以呢呢？why not race?比如，如果我们已经知道.....Like if we already know that,-我想先重申一下，你的第一个观点， Da. ，好吗？——好的Let's.. I want to stick with your first point, Da.- Okay.Da的反对意见是这样的Here's Da's objection.一所大学是否可以 以自己喜欢的任意方式 来确定自己的使命，Can a college or university define its social purpose any way it wants to并据此来 制订录取标准？and define admissions criteria accordingly?如果 这件事不是发生在今天的 德州大学法学院，What about the University of Texas Law School not today,而是1950年代？but in the 1950s?这里有另外一件 联邦法院判例Then, there was another Supreme Court case,针对德州大学法学院的录取政策against the admissions policy of the University of Texas Law School因为 它采取种族隔离because it was segregated.它只录取白人It only admitted whites.而1950年代，这起案件庭审时And when the case went to court back in the '50s,德州大学法学院 也援用了自己的使命the University of Texas Law School also invoked its mission.“作为一所法律学校，我们的使命是"Our mission as a law school,是为 德州的律师界 和 律师事务所 培养律师is to educate lawyers for the Texas bar, the Texas law firms.而在德州，没有哪家事务所，会雇佣非裔美国人And no Texas law firm hires African Americans.因此，为了履行我们的使命So to fulfill our mission,我们只录取白人”we only admit whites."或者，来看一下 1930年代的哈佛Or consider Harvard, in the 1930s当时它有 反犹太配额when it had anti-Jewish quotas.1930年代的哈佛校长 Lowell 表示President Lowell, the president of Harvard in the 1930s said,他本人对犹太人并无偏见that he had nothing personally against Jews,但他援引了哈佛的使命，哈佛的社会目标，他说but he invoked the mission, the social purpose of Harvard he said,“不仅仅为了 训练知识分子"which is not only to train intellectuals,“哈佛的部分使命在于，训练出华尔街的股票经纪、总统和参议员，part of the mission at Harvard," he said, "is to train stockbrokers for Wall Street, presidents and senators而犹太人很少从事这些职业”and there are very few Jews who go into those professions."现在，我们的质疑在于Now, here's the challenge.以下两者 是否有原则上的区别：Is there a principle distinction当代的大学或学院所援引的社会使命---实现多样化，between the invocation of the social purpose of the college or university today, in the diversity rationale与1950年代的德州大学，或是1930年代的哈佛大学 所援引的社会使命？and the invocation of the social purpose or mission of the university by Texas in the 1950s or Harvard in the 1930s?这里 有没有原则上的区别？Is there a difference in principle?你是怎么回应？What's the reply?Hannah？ 我想，原则上的区别在于Hannah?- Well, I think that the principle different here is包容与排斥basically the distinction between inclusion versus exclusion.我认为，如果一所大学说I think that it's morally wrong of the university to say“我们把你排除在外，是基于你的宗教或人种” 这在道德上是错误的。"We're going to exclude you on the basis of your religion or your race."这种拒绝录取是 建立在专横的因素基础上的That's denial on the basis of arbitrary factors.今天，哈佛提议多样化What Harvard is trying to do today with its diversity initiatives,是为了包容过去 曾被排斥的群体is to include groups that were excluded in the past.好的，停一下。让我们看看是否有人愿意回应Good, let's see if, stay there, let's see if someone would like to reply.继续——实际上这是对Hannah的支持Go ahead. - Actually this is kind of in support of Hannah,而不是反驳---那好吧rather than a reply but,- That's alright.我刚才想说，另外一个原则上的区别I was going to say another principle difference