Abstract：
In Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action in university admissions, in which an applicant of a particular race or ethnicity receives a plus factor, is unconstitutional. This ruling was based on both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This article argues that a more natural fit as the basis for constitutional analysis would be a different clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In the article, a legal analysis based on the clause is applied to medical school admissions. Depending on whether a fundamental rights reading or an antidiscrimination (equality) reading of the clause is applied, opposite conclusions are reached on the constitutionality of affirmative action in medical school admissions. This analysis demonstrates why affirmative action in admissions--in this case medical school admissions, which directly affect the composition of the Nation\'s physician workforce--is a complex and difficult constitutional question.
摘要：
在公平招生的学生诉哈佛大学校长和研究员以及公平招生的学生诉北卡罗来纳大学中，最高法院裁定在大学录取中采取平权行动，特定种族或族裔的申请人获得加分，是违宪的。该裁决基于《第十四修正案》的平等保护条款和1964年《民权法》的第六章。本文认为，更自然的适合作为宪法分析的基础将是第十四修正案中的不同条款，特权或豁免条款。在文章中,基于该条款的法律分析适用于医学院招生。根据对该条款是否适用基本权利阅读或反歧视(平等)阅读，关于医学院招生中的平权行动的合宪性，得出了相反的结论。这一分析表明，为什么在招生中采取平权行动--在这种情况下，医学院招生，这直接影响到国家的医生队伍的组成-是一个复杂而困难的宪法问题。
