摘要:1. You're not going to hire someone with an accent or who looks Hispanic. (亞利桑那州針對非法移民的新法)
2. And then if you don't, then you get slammed on the other side by civil suits for discrimination. (聯邦法當中的平等雇用法)
3. 人才的遴選，不論是聘請教職員或核發學生入學許可，都必須依據他們的能力，擇優汰劣，最忌諱盲目地以國籍為遴選標準。
第一篇原文網站: http://www.npr.org/2011/05/26/136690537/top-court-upholds-arizona-employer-sanctions-law
Top Court Upholds Arizona Employer Sanctions Law
May 26, 2011
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld an Arizona law that would allow the state to penalize businesses that hire illegal immigrants. NPR's Nina Totenberg tells Robert Siegel about the opinion.
Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.
MICHELE NORRIS, host:
From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Michele Norris.
ROBERT SIEGEL, host:
And I'm Robert Siegel.
The Supreme Court has upheld an Arizona law that allows the state to shut down businesses that hire workers who are in the country illegally. The five-to-three decision gives states far more power to enact measures aimed at controlling the influx of illegal immigrants. And joining us now to talk about this is NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg.
Hiya.
NINA TOTENBERG: Hiya.
SIEGEL: And first, this is not the big and very controversial Arizona law that was passed last year, right?
TOTENBERG: No. That law, much of which has been struck down by the lower courts, requires law enforcement personnel to check up on the status of any individual they think on the street is illegally in the country and it says, you know, give me your papers, that kind of thing. In contrast, this law was upheld by the lower courts, and it imposes harsh penalties on businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers.
This law was and is very controversial because it basically does two things, both of which drive huge loopholes through the longstanding federal immigration statute, which Congress enacted to get rid of the patchwork of state immigration schemes.
SIEGEL: And what are the two things that it does?
TOTENBERG: Well, the federal law makes the federal government the exclusive enforcer of immigration violations, but there's a caveat: exempting state licensing provisions. And Arizona defines licensing to include virtually all business permits. And under state law, if an employer knowingly hires an illegal worker, the business can be fined for the first offense, and a second offense can mean you lose the right to do business at all in the state.
SIEGEL: But how can the state show that a business not only hired an illegal worker but knowingly hired an illegal worker?
TOTENBERG: Ha. That's the second provision of the law. It makes it mandatory for employers to use the federal government's E-verify system. Now, E-verify is a sort of a pilot computer-data-check system that Congress specifically made voluntary because about one out of five workers is erroneously reported as illegal because of mistaken name spellings, similar names, things like that.
SIEGEL: OK. This law was upheld by five justices. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion. All of the justices who voted with him are Republicans, yes?
TOTENBERG: All Republican appointees.
SIEGEL: And their reasoning?
TOTENBERG: Well, first, as to the licensing provision, he said basically that Congress put the licensing caveat in the law and that a license to do business is a license to do business. In other words, that the law, on its face, allows the state to shut down businesses that twice knowingly employ an illegal worker.
An employer who uses the E-verify system, he noted, has an affirmative defense, essentially proof that he did not knowingly employ an illegal worker.
SIEGEL: Well, how did the court get around the problem that, as you say, the federal government made E-verify a voluntary program but the state law makes it mandatory?
TOTENBERG: Chief Justice Roberts said that since Congress barred the secretary of Homeland Security from making the program mandatory, the statute limits what the secretary can do - nothing more. Arizona can make the federal program mandatory, he said, because the state is not the secretary of Homeland Security.
SIEGEL: Nina, this case was brought by a powerful coalition - the chamber of commerce, civil rights groups. What would you expect to happen right now?
TOTENBERG: I think they're going to go to Congress. They're really scared of this. I talked, for example, to Carter Phillips, who represents the chamber, and who painted the following picture for me: Sheriff Joe runs amok, starts raiding the small businesses in a mall. You're down the street. You're not going to hire someone with an accent or who looks Hispanic.
And then if you don't, then you get slammed on the other side by civil suits for discrimination. That's why they hated this law so much, and that's why I suspect they're going to go to Congress to try to fix this.
SIEGEL: OK. Thank you, Nina.
TOTENBERG: Thank you, Robert.
SIEGEL: NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg.
Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.
第二篇原文網址
http://epaper.edu.tw/windows.aspx?windows_sn=9657
駐韓國臺北代表部文化組
哈佛教授講研究型大學全球化要訣：戒絕六大干預
2012年3月15日The Korea Times第5版專題報導 504期 2012-03-22
哈佛大學教授說：大學必須藉研究鞏固其全球化地位。
本(2011)年3月14日，南韓基金會（Korea Foundation）以「哈佛大學看高等教育全球化（Global Higher Education from the Eyes of Harvard University）」為題，在首爾舉行論壇，請到哈佛大學主管國際事務副教務長、同時也是該校墨西哥研究安東尼奧‧馬德羅講座教授（Antonio Madero Professor for the Study of Mexico）的岳格‧艾‧道明谷耶?（Jorge I. Dominguez）擔任主題演講人。
道明谷耶茲說，研究型大學應將它的使命定位為知識的生產者、應用者、與傳播者。研究型大學為達成這項使命，或為恪盡它的存在價值，必須擁有六大自由，若從反面解釋，也可以說務必戒絕六大干預：（1）避免教會（宗教）干預；（2）避免國家（政府）干預；（3）避免捐助者干預；（4）避免本校自身的傲慢；（5）避免本校行政管理階層的干預；（6）避免受限於本校過往的是與非。
大學的主管機關與經營者，不論是教會（如某宗教團體）或政府，都不可對大學的研究方向、研究方法、研究結果、及研究的應用訂定任何目標或規範。任何教條、政綱、意識形態，均不可凌駕於大學的研究之上、不可介入大學研究工作。最明顯的一個例子，是前蘇聯史達林時代嚴禁大學從事基因遺傳研究，就是這個緣故，導致前蘇聯物理科學成就非凡，生命科學乏善可陳。
又如二十世紀1950年代，哈佛大學對主張共產主義人士的長期迫害，也是人們耳熟能詳的實例。因此，所謂避免政府的干預分兩種，一是政治教條的干預，一是人力資源市場的保護主義；後者特指大學招聘教師、研究人員、及選取學生時，不能限制須持某國國籍，而應以是否具有最佳能力為選才基準。
大學需要捐助者的經費支持，但大學招收什麼學生入學、大學對所獲經費如何分配使用，均不受捐助者左右。大學應該主動為研究募款、尋找經費來源，但所從事的研究項目，絕不限於有經費才研究，沒經費就不研究，也不應只從事捐助者所支持的研究項目。大學應自由研究、自由出版、自由討論分析，不受捐助者的干預。
大學應戒絕自大，不可傲慢到以為只有本校的教職員是最優異的；大學遴聘新教職員或辦理教職員升遷，固然可從校內物色、提升，但也應從世界各地徵選最適才適所的人。再者，教職員間的相互探討、評比也是同等重要，特別是論文發表前或專著出版前，都必須先通過同儕間的充分批判與修正機制。大學裡的任何研究計畫，都應經歷教職員間的共同研討、彼此審查，而這正是大學之所以能持續存在與卓越成長的核心。
學術自由必須以教授為中心。換言之，唯有教授本人可以決定自己要從事什麼研究、規劃如何作研究、決定研究的理論依據為何，絕不受所任職大學行政管理當局任何部門、任何職位人士的干涉，沒有人可以命令或強迫教授去從事他所不想或不樂意作的研究。
大學還必須不受制於它的過去，也就是不陷溺在它自身所發生過的或好或壞行為裡，應能找出以往作過的錯事，承認它，並痛下決心把它改正過來。歷史上，哈佛大學也曾犯過可恥的錯誤，如惡意歧視非洲裔美國人、猶太人、女性；但今日，哈佛人會很驕傲地說，已痛改前非，不再重蹈覆轍；更重要的是，哈佛大學行政人員必須向社會大眾公開承認犯過這些錯誤。
道明谷耶兹教授在演講即將結束的時候特別指出，上述六大自由或六大必須戒絕的干預，不是研究型大學達到全球化的唯一途徑，尚須配合其他許多條件，而其中最關鍵的是人才的遴選，不論是聘請教職員或核發學生入學許可，都必須依據他們的能力，擇優汰劣，最忌諱盲目地以國籍為遴選標準。
沒有留言:
張貼留言