美國早在六０年代就有研究報告指出，廣電媒體對少數族群的呈現，不但充滿歧 視，而且報導數量又少。 聯邦傳播委員會 (FCC) 為了要增加節目的多元性及與少數族群相 關的節目， 於 1978 年公佈了三項優惠少數族群的主要措施， 如「比較聽證優惠」 (comparative hearing preference)、 「折價出售」 (distress sale) 「延遲付稅證明」 (tax certificate)。 然而這些優惠政策是否符合憲法第十四修正案的「平等保障原則」？ 1989 年，華盛頓上訴法院在 Shurberg 案判「折價出售」違憲，但卻在 Winter Park 案中 判「比較聽證優惠」合憲。一年之後，比較聽證會和折價出售兩項優惠政策同時被最高法院 在 Metro Broadcasting 的案子中確定合憲。 不料 1995 年，最高法院在 Adarand 案卻又 認為 FCC 對少數族群的優惠政策違憲。本文旨在探討 FCC 對少數族群的優惠政策及美國最 高法院對該政策的解釋。鑑於美國對少數族群的優惠措施，我國政府相關單位在面對特定族 群 (如客家與原住民 ) 時，或許有可資借鏡之處。

　　　　　In 1960s, the Kerner report said that minorities were portrayed unfair- ly and underrepresented in broadcasting. In order to increase diverse and particularly minority- oriented programming, the FCC has developed several minority preference policies such as comparative hearing preference, distress sale, and tax certificates. The FCC defended its racial-conscious measures by saying that there is a nexus between minority ownership and programming diversity. It believes that granting minorities preference in broadcasting will not only help minorities but also serve the public interest. Are the FCC's minority preference policies constitutionally permissible? In 1989, the Court of Appeals of the D.C. Circuit ruled the constitutionality of the policies differently in Shurberg and Winter Park. One year later, both comparative hearing preference and distress sale policies were upheld by the Supreme Court in Metro Broadcasting. However, they were overruled by the Supreme Court in Adarand Constructors in 1995. This paper discusses the rationale, the development, and the courts' interpretation of the FCC's minority preference policies. It concludes by recommending some possible solutions to match the changing society as time goes on.