In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, research by Duke University economist Professor Peter Arcidiacono examined the role of race in Harvard’s admissions decisions. Using econometric and statistical analysis, he concluded that race played a significant role in who was admitted.
According to Professor Arcidiacono, if an Asian applicant with certain characteristics—scores, GPAs, and extracurricular activities—had a 25 percent statistical likelihood of admission, the same applicant, if white, would have a 36 percent likelihood of admission. Latino applicants with the same factors would have a predicted 77 percent chance of admission, while Black applicants with the same factors would have a 95 percent likelihood of admission under Harvard’s admissions practices during the era of Affirmative Action.
According to Professor Arcidiacono, if an Asian applicant with certain characteristics—scores, GPAs, and extracurricular activities—had a 25 percent statistical likelihood of admission, the same applicant, if white, would have a 36 percent likelihood of admission. Latino applicants with the same factors would have a predicted 77 percent chance of admission, while Black applicants with the same factors would have a 95 percent likelihood of admission under Harvard’s admissions practices during the era of Affirmative Action.
 |
| Photo by That's Her Business on Unsplash |
He also projected that Asian admissions to Harvard would increase by more than 46 percent over six years if the university were to remove racial and ethnic admission preferences for Black and Latino applicants while also removing penalties applied to Asian applicants.
Harvard has a history of denying admission to qualified applicants when a minority group becomes a strong presence on campus. The Brief Amicus Curiae submitted by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation in support of the petitioner, Students for Fair Admissions, pointed to parallels between the treatment of Asian applicants and Harvard’s Jewish quota of the 1920s and 1930s. During that period, Harvard artificially suppressed the number of Jewish students by denying admission to qualified applicants after then–President Abbott Lawrence Lowell raised concerns about the rising number of Jewish freshmen year over year.
And here we are. The Supreme Court has ended Affirmative Action.
As I shared on Instagram Stories, I felt conflicted when the news broke. As a Korean American, I felt vindicated that we cannot be discriminated against, fearful of an ambiguous future, and frustrated because both ends of the political spectrum seem, at times, equally lost.
Former President Obama was right when he said Affirmative Action was never perfect. Jay Caspian Kang of The New Yorker perhaps summarized it best: “The original concept in pursuit of diversity was vital and righteous. The way it was practiced was hard to defend.”
The decision was not a moment of celebration for me. Yet it did something important. It made Asians visible after decades of being rendered invisible by both courts and many of the advocates defending Affirmative Action.
It was not a celebration because the end of Affirmative Action also introduces an ambiguous future for Black, Latino, and Asian students alike. Universities have already suggested that admissions criteria may become more subjective rather than more objective. That shift risks allowing institutions to continue favoring legacy status and financial privilege while claiming the language of diversity.
Affirmative Action has been an irritating subject for me for years. I have read articles, statistics, and editorial arguments in an effort to understand the other side and temper my own frustration. Yet I struggle to see how sacrificing one minority group in the name of helping others can be justified.
Why does a culture that speaks so passionately about equality and inclusion so often leave Asians outside that conversation?
Is a system of diversity that penalizes one group of minorities for the sake of others truly inclusive?
We do not live in a perfect world. Beyond overt discrimination and racism, unconscious bias continues to shape institutions. That reality makes it even more important to minimize subjective measures in favor of clearer and fairer standards.
Real progress would mean investing in opportunities, tools, and resources for all children long before they reach the admissions gates of elite universities—not telling them that their chances are already predetermined.
I am reminded of Professor Anne C. Bailey, Director of the Harriet Tubman Center for Freedom and Equality at Binghamton University, who defended Harvard in an opinion published by Newsweek. Reflecting on her time at the university, she described a campus where students came from every imaginable background:
“You never knew who you were going to meet: the kid from Montana who was brilliant at carpentry but had also read every Shakespearean play; the engineer in the making who was already inventing things; the organic farmer committed to sustainable agriculture long before it was fashionable; the virtuoso violinist from inner-city Chicago; the Christian missionary who had lived and worked in China; the future lawyer already arguing cases in the cafeteria.”
It is a beautiful description of intellectual diversity. Yet Asians are often absent from the way that diversity is imagined.
According to the 2021 U.S. Census, millions trace their heritage to Asia—5.2 million Chinese, 2.3 million Vietnamese, 2 million Korean, and 1.6 million Japanese, among many others. Within these communities are individuals whose talents extend far beyond test scores and GPAs—students who build, invent, perform, farm, argue, and imagine in ways no admissions formula can measure.
Just because some of us happen to be Asians with high scores and strong academic records does not mean we cannot also be the student from Montana with remarkable carpentry skills who has read every Shakespeare play; the engineer already inventing things; the organic farmer determined to make agriculture sustainable; the virtuoso violinist from inner-city Chicago; the missionary who has lived and worked abroad; or the future lawyer arguing cases in the cafeteria.
Asians should neither be denied entry to nor rendered invisible within that treasure trove.
Harvard has a history of denying admission to qualified applicants when a minority group becomes a strong presence on campus. The Brief Amicus Curiae submitted by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation in support of the petitioner, Students for Fair Admissions, pointed to parallels between the treatment of Asian applicants and Harvard’s Jewish quota of the 1920s and 1930s. During that period, Harvard artificially suppressed the number of Jewish students by denying admission to qualified applicants after then–President Abbott Lawrence Lowell raised concerns about the rising number of Jewish freshmen year over year.
And here we are. The Supreme Court has ended Affirmative Action.
As I shared on Instagram Stories, I felt conflicted when the news broke. As a Korean American, I felt vindicated that we cannot be discriminated against, fearful of an ambiguous future, and frustrated because both ends of the political spectrum seem, at times, equally lost.
Former President Obama was right when he said Affirmative Action was never perfect. Jay Caspian Kang of The New Yorker perhaps summarized it best: “The original concept in pursuit of diversity was vital and righteous. The way it was practiced was hard to defend.”
The decision was not a moment of celebration for me. Yet it did something important. It made Asians visible after decades of being rendered invisible by both courts and many of the advocates defending Affirmative Action.
It was not a celebration because the end of Affirmative Action also introduces an ambiguous future for Black, Latino, and Asian students alike. Universities have already suggested that admissions criteria may become more subjective rather than more objective. That shift risks allowing institutions to continue favoring legacy status and financial privilege while claiming the language of diversity.
Affirmative Action has been an irritating subject for me for years. I have read articles, statistics, and editorial arguments in an effort to understand the other side and temper my own frustration. Yet I struggle to see how sacrificing one minority group in the name of helping others can be justified.
Why does a culture that speaks so passionately about equality and inclusion so often leave Asians outside that conversation?
Is a system of diversity that penalizes one group of minorities for the sake of others truly inclusive?
We do not live in a perfect world. Beyond overt discrimination and racism, unconscious bias continues to shape institutions. That reality makes it even more important to minimize subjective measures in favor of clearer and fairer standards.
Real progress would mean investing in opportunities, tools, and resources for all children long before they reach the admissions gates of elite universities—not telling them that their chances are already predetermined.
I am reminded of Professor Anne C. Bailey, Director of the Harriet Tubman Center for Freedom and Equality at Binghamton University, who defended Harvard in an opinion published by Newsweek. Reflecting on her time at the university, she described a campus where students came from every imaginable background:
“You never knew who you were going to meet: the kid from Montana who was brilliant at carpentry but had also read every Shakespearean play; the engineer in the making who was already inventing things; the organic farmer committed to sustainable agriculture long before it was fashionable; the virtuoso violinist from inner-city Chicago; the Christian missionary who had lived and worked in China; the future lawyer already arguing cases in the cafeteria.”
It is a beautiful description of intellectual diversity. Yet Asians are often absent from the way that diversity is imagined.
According to the 2021 U.S. Census, millions trace their heritage to Asia—5.2 million Chinese, 2.3 million Vietnamese, 2 million Korean, and 1.6 million Japanese, among many others. Within these communities are individuals whose talents extend far beyond test scores and GPAs—students who build, invent, perform, farm, argue, and imagine in ways no admissions formula can measure.
Just because some of us happen to be Asians with high scores and strong academic records does not mean we cannot also be the student from Montana with remarkable carpentry skills who has read every Shakespeare play; the engineer already inventing things; the organic farmer determined to make agriculture sustainable; the virtuoso violinist from inner-city Chicago; the missionary who has lived and worked abroad; or the future lawyer arguing cases in the cafeteria.
Asians should neither be denied entry to nor rendered invisible within that treasure trove.
_____
More essays:
Comments
Post a Comment