Harvard loses, strong endowments, entrenched stereotypes... "outsiders" Asians are far from the game

On June 29, local time, the US Supreme Court hammered the final word, ruling that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina were suspected of racial discrimination in the admissions process. What followed was a heated discussion like a public opinion fryer. For Asians at the center of the topic, the ruling affects not only the future admission of colleges, but also the life experience and status of Asian Americans in American society. A big change may just be beginning.

Text丨Luna ed.丨May

In the past two days, the first major case in the American education circle has finally settled - Harvard University lost!

The University of North Carolina lost the case as it did in the dock.

Image source: DailyMail

The conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decades-old Affirmative Action in American colleges and universities — prohibiting universities from deciding on admission based on a student's race in future admissions.

It also brought an end to this case, which lasted for almost 9 years.

In 2014, conservative white legal strategist Edward Bloom founded the Student Fair Admissions Organization (SFFA) and has sued Harvard and the University of North Carolina on behalf of some Asian-American students.

They argued that the admissions policies of the two universities discriminated against Asian-Americans who met the admission requirements and violated civil rights laws.

In 2019 and 2020, SFFA suffered two consecutive defeats and chose to continue appealing.

In June 2023, SFFA won!

This result is a depth charge for the entire American society. In the court where the verdict was announced, voices for and against were already confronting:

Justice Roberts: For too long, many colleges have wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not the challenges overcome, the skills developed, or the lessons learned, but the color of their skin.

Justice Sotomayor: In a society where apartheid was pervasive, race has always been important, and still is.

Justice Thomas: From her perspective, we are all mired in a racist society, burdened with the original sin of slavery.

Justice Jackson: Starting today, the race-neutral admissions stance enforced by the court is out of touch with the key real-life situation.

Green represents the opinion of conservative justices

Yellow represents the opinion of liberal justices

An hour after the ruling was announced, Harvard and the University of North Carolina responded quickly — disagreeing with the outcome, but they would still comply. In addition, Yale University, Cornell University and other universities have also publicly expressed their disappointment with the ruling.

In the media and social platforms in the United States, the discussion of public opinion is more intense and straightforward.

Opponents say this adds to the problem of racial inequality. Supporters like Trump write on their media platform Truth Social: "This is a great day for America!" ”

Even on the Chinese Internet, many people are asking, how will the admissions policies of top American universities like Harvard change in the future? Does it have any impact on applying for Meiben? Does it have an impact on elementary school students?

This Asian admissions discrimination case of "magic to defeat magic" ended in a losing case for college. But this may just be the prelude to a big change.

Educational affirmative action, a beautiful original intention

with disappointing results

When it comes to the education affirmative action of American universities, the part of Asians standing in the plaintiff's seat has endless bitterness in their hearts.

Two professors at Princeton University once revealed in "No More Separation and Inequality" that some Ivy League schools will add 310 points to blacks, 130 points to Hispanics when evaluating students' SAT scores, whites unchanged, and Asians to deduct 140 points.

Roll scores alone were not enough, and plaintiff SFFA also disclosed Harvard's "personal grading" system. In terms of "personality" rating, only 22.2% of Asians can get the highest level 1 or the second level 2, which is the lowest percentage. Sometimes, the admissions office gives the lowest rating of any race without even seeing an Asian applicant.

Seeing African-Americans and Latinos being treated favorably simply because of their racial identity makes it hard not to have a spike in blood pressure. When it comes to "equal rights", Asians, as a minority, have become "victims".

However, there is also a lot of support for affirmative action in education because it does push for more equal opportunities for minorities.

In 1896, the mulatto Plessy wanted to take a white carriage but was told by the conductor that he had to sit in a carriage of color. The justices also wrote in their judgment: "Separate but equal".

Although whites play with whites and blacks with blacks, our facilities are the same, so there is no discrimination.

Separate sinks

This seems ridiculous today. Because at that time, the living facilities, schools, and work treatment of blacks could not be the same as that of whites. At the time, only Justice John Marshall Harlan raised the only objection.

It wasn't until 1954 that Brown v. Board of Education voted 9-0 rejecting "segregation but equality," arguing that apartheid was unconstitutional.

Since then, many Americans have begun to agree that in a certain historical period, the starting points of various races are different, and if you want to achieve equality in education, employment, etc., you need to pay special attention to the disadvantaged races.

Hence the idea of affirmative action in education. Later, the concept of "diversity" was added.

I don't know if you have noticed, the mention here is useful "in a certain historical period".

By 2003, Groot, a white man, sued the University of Michigan for adopting racial quotas in its admissions process. Although the final ruling was that the university was not unconstitutional, the judgment reads, "The Court expects that affirmative action in education will not be needed for the next 25 years." ”

Source: Oyez

Now, before 2028 arrives, conservatives can't sit still. In his majority opinion, Justice Roberts wrote, "[Race-based admissions] violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." The admissions programs of both universities lack sufficiently focused and measurable goals, inevitably exploit race in negative ways, involve racial stereotypes, and lack meaningful endpoints. ”

This paragraph resonated with many people. The New York Times has reported that some Asian students are completely afraid to reveal their racial identity in their personal statements, and will try to avoid those extracurricular activities that "Asian Americans like", for fear of being labeled by the school and affecting the admission results.

Source: The New York Times

The past pursuit of equal educational affirmative action has become a passive setting that increases the difficulty of life for today's Asian students.

Prohibition of affirmative action in education,

Will admission be good for Asians?

One of the most pressing questions today is, how to change university admissions?

Judging from the statements of various universities, everyone unanimously emphasized one point - diversity.

The joint statement from Harvard University reads that "deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend on a community of people with diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and life experiences."

The president of the University of North Carolina also mentioned that the school will "firmly recruit talented students with different perspectives and different life experiences to provide high-quality and affordable education."

Even Yale University, which was not brought to court, issued a statement to ensure that Yale is "home to ideas, expertise and experience."

The Supreme Court also noted in its opinion that students can still discuss the impact of racial identity on their own development in their personal statements. "As long as the discussion is specifically related to the applicant's character qualities, or unique abilities, which can contribute to the university."

So, would a ban on affirmative action in education be beneficial to Asians?

Many commentators speculate that the percentage of Asians at top universities is sure to rise.

In the United States, nine states have implemented bans in public universities: Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington.

Source: The Washington Post

The Washington Post compared student data from the 30 years since eight of these states imposed bans. The results showed that after the ban, the proportion of whites, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and blacks increased. Among them, whites benefited the most, with an increase far exceeding that of Asians.

For more specifics, look at California. Ten years after the ban, the percentage of Asians at UCLA and UC Berkeley has risen slightly, which is much higher than the percentage of Asians in all public universities in California.

It means that more Asian-American students are entering prestigious schools like UCLA and UC Berkeley. Latinos are the ones most negatively affected.

(Left) Ethnic Representation at UCLA and UC Berkeley (Right) Racial Representation at All Public Universities in California

Other researchers have created data models that predict that a national ban would reduce the number of underrepresented minorities (with different classifications per university) by 2 percent across all four-year colleges and up to 10 percent at competitive top schools.

Combined with other data, it is likely that this difference will be divided among white and Asian students.

After the education affirmative action,

"Alumni admissions" became the next hit

Since being indicted in 2014, Harvard University has cited "diversity" countless times as a reason for affirmative action in education.

How exactly can diversity be defined? Universities have repeatedly referred to racial diversity in various statements.

But the plaintiffs, SFFA, sharply point out a point that universities deliberately avoid: Harvard University has not achieved diversity anywhere but race when it comes to admissions.

According to Harvard's own latest freshman admission survey, nearly 19 percent of white students say they are children of alumni, compared with 15.1 percent of Asians, 6.1 percent of blacks, and 9.1 percent of Latinos. Among alumni children, 31 percent have a household income of $500,000 or more.

Among them, the four categories of ALDC are the most criticized. These are athletes, children of alumni, children of faculty and staff, and the dean's interest list (mostly donor relatives).

In 2020, the Journal of Labor Economics published a paper Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard, which found that 43% of students admitted to Harvard University were white applicants with ALDC, while less than 16% of Asians, African-Americans, and Hispanics were Americans.

About 70 percent of "children of alumni" applicants are white. If a white family donates to Harvard, the child's odds of being admitted are sevenfold higher.

In fact, in oral arguments last October, several conservative judges proposed eliminating the admission preference for the children of alumni as an alternative to Harvard's racially neutral policy. But Harvard simply refused.

In an interview in March, William R. Fitzsimmons, dean of the Harvard School of Admissions and Funding, said that the status of alumni's children played only a "minor role" in the admissions process. The implication is that Harvard admits these alumni because they are good enough.

Harvard University publishes the acceptance rate for ALDC and non-ALDC students

Justice Sotomayor, who supports affirmative action in education, is not entirely on Harvard's side on one point. She believes that less than 5 percent of Harvard applicants each year have ALDC, but as many as 30 percent of those who are accepted. That's why affirmative action in education is needed to balance the final admissions outcome.

Now that the ruling has been made, many experts and scholars have made suggestions that more or less involve the interests of ALDC when discussing the new admission criteria.

In his White House statement, President Biden called for universities to carefully consider the hardships students overcome, such as family finances, the region in which they grew up and attended high school, and discrimination (including racial discrimination) that students may face.

David B. Oppenheimer, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said, "Emphasis can be placed on enrolling students who speak English as a second language. ”

Joshua S. Wyner, executive director of the Aspen University Excellence Program, said Harvard could strengthen the transfer program at community colleges and enroll more veterans.

Will Harvard remove ALDC's admissions preference? It is difficult to conclude, at least not in Harvard's official statement.

In fact, in 2017, Harvard established the "Race Neutral Alternatives Research Committee." But the committee's final report shows that ALDC's strong position in admissions is hard to shake.

The report also notes that alumni child preferences help cement strong ties between universities and their alumni. "Harvard alumni have also provided generous financial support to their alma mater. This is crucial to Harvard's position as a leading institution of higher education. It also contributes to financial aid policies, thereby promoting diversity and excellence in the College's student body. ”

Some students said that economically it made sense for universities to do so.

One student interviewed said that he came from a low-income family and was a first-generation college student, and "I relied on donations from donors to afford Harvard." If that's the price to pay, so be it. ”

Evan J. Mandery of the John Jay School of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York disagrees. "There is no evidence that terminating the preference of alumni children jeopardizes important interests. In contrast, MIT does not adopt this system, and still has nearly $25 billion in endowments. ”

The debate over ALDC is currently bogged down. As for what to do next, it depends on Harvard's own decision.

"Outsiders" wandering in American society,

How far are the Asian ideals?

College admissions are just the tip of the iceberg for Asian-Americans in American society. Discrimination and stereotypes in life and work are still difficult to eliminate after so many years.

The Asian community, it seems, has always been an "outsider."

In 2022, the Asian American Foundation (TAAF) released a report showing that Asians have the weakest sense of belonging in the United States.

61% of whites, 33% of blacks, and 42% of Hispanics feel fully part of the United States and accepted by the country.

The percentage of Asians was only 29 percent, and in this year's survey, it dropped to 22 percent. Among them, Asian women are particularly alienated.

According to respondents, racial discrimination remains the biggest factor in alienating Asians.

"What makes you feel like you're not accepted into America?"

On TikTok, there are also Chinese girls who tell about their experience of changing their names: Xinyuan Ye, who grew up in the United States, said that sometimes no one calls her name for hours or even days. But when she switched to her nickname, Sage, she not only received more headhunters on LinkedIn, but also more likes and matches on dating apps.

She wrote in the video's caption, "Sadly, the decision to change my name has directly affected me for the rest of my life."

In the comments section, Chinese netizens who grew up in a white community said, "Having an Asian name means that no one will say your name or be ridiculed." Some Chinese netizens said that they are also Chinese names, just because they are better pronounced, so they have not experienced name discrimination.

However, in the debate over affirmative action in education, there are also those who say that this should not be a war for Asians and other minorities, and that the results will only benefit elites.

Chelsea Wang, an Asian student who went to Harvard from American High School, believes that white supremacy portrays affirmative action in education as a zero-sum game for Asians and other minorities.

"If the court outlaws affirmative action, Harvard will have three times as many white students as Asian, and repeal will only hurt disadvantaged Asians."

Asian American groups vary widely in income and education

Some people worry that even if race can no longer be used as a separate admissions criterion on the surface, the application system of American universities still fills the admissions process with room for maneuverability. Today, the percentage of affirmative action cards in education is used, and tomorrow there may be new standards. Without the right to speak, Asians will have no less difficulty.

American best-selling author Coleman Hughes takes a different view: "Affirmative action in education is an elite policy, and schools with acceptance rates above 50% generally do not adopt affirmative action." To define it as a matter of 'access to higher education' is nothing more than a '1% of the elite of color' (myself included) that gives a nobler aura to their narrow self-interest. ”

Others say the ruling is just a microcosm of partisanship in the United States. The Democratic Party, which represents liberals, has been actively promoting affirmative action, while the Republican Party, which represents conservatives, has been in opposition to the Democratic Party. The justices' votes are also consistent with their political leanings.

Lin Yao, J.D. from Yale University, Ph.D. in Political Science at Columbia University, and currently teaches at NYU Shanghai, analyzed that the current limitations of the "affirmative action" policy are precisely due to the containment and stranglehold of more ambitious and intersectional racial equality demands by right-wing conservative forces in the United States in the past few decades, resulting in a shrinking space for policy experiments in transitional justice, leaving only some small preferential compensation measures.

Asians may seem far from having enough to speak, but change is happening all the time.

For international students, affirmative action in education for U.S. students may have little impact. But Asian-Americans' efforts to change their image, and the status Asian parents strive for in basic education, may also affect the U.S. student experience.

As Lin Yao said, compared with the admission of colleges and universities where most people have no chance to compete, the improvement of the quality of basic education in primary and secondary schools is the way to cure the root cause.

Last year, Asian parents at Thomas Jefferson Tech High School in Virginia formed a coalition of "Mama Bears" to fight for Asian children and oppose the school's change from exam admission to lottery.

About 200 people protested the cancellation of merit-based admission at Thomas Jefferson Tech High School in Virginia

A few days ago, New York State Senator Liu Ol-yi and State Representative Li Rongen respectively put forward proposals for the State School Board to include Asian Pacific American history in the statewide public school curriculum and launch related plans, with a view to implementing it in New York State schools as soon as the 2024-2025 school year.

At the press conference, Liu said, "AAPIs have always been scapegoated for all kinds of crises, whether it's economic recession, war or plague. This is all because people don't know about AAPIs, there are always stereotypes such as the yellow peril, eternal foreigners, etc., so it is important to educate the next generation. "At present, the New York State Senate has passed it, and it is expected that the state House version will also be passed soon.

Source: CGTN American

From Harvard's seat in the dock in 2014 to the final judgment of the US Supreme Court, the nearly 9-year tug-of-war has finally ended.

After that, it remains to be seen whether Asian-Americans can get more seats in elite universities, how many K12 education schools can be radiated by the university's education affirmative action ban, and how many stereotypes in the workplace and society can be affected.