Harvard and other universities' "affirmative action" enrollment is unconstitutional, and Chinese climbing families should not be happy too early
Recently, the U.S. High Court issued a far-reaching ruling against two prominent universities, ruling that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's "racial quota" admissions policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
The "racial quota" system, also known as affirmative admissions programs, ensures "diversity" in colleges and universities by reserving fixed enrollment slots for students of a particular race.
Image source: USA TODAY
For most Chinese parents and children, the word "race" is too far removed from our lives to feel strange and difficult to understand.
However, this policy has been used by American colleges and universities for decades and is a fundamental admissions principle.
The reversal of this policy means that many colleges will need to adjust their admissions policies to no longer consider the race of applicants, so Asian Americans and white Americans who value education may have more access to admission.
So, will this be good news for Chinese climbing children?
01
Admissions Policy: Racial Discrimination Based on Race
To understand the "U.S. High Court's ruling that race-based admissions policy is unconstitutional" and the far-reaching implications of this ruling, we first need to understand what race-based admissions policy is.
Image source: USA TODAY
Many people may have this question: Does the implementation of race-based admissions policies in universities indicate that there is racial discrimination in the admissions process?
This is not the case, because the "race-based admissions policy" is to protect the right to education of ethnic minorities, while the "racial" admissions policy discriminates against minority students and denies admission on the ground.
In other words, the group protected by the former is precisely the group that the latter discriminates against and harms.
That's why, until this ruling, "racial quotas" were the mainstream of U.S. college admissions policy, because protecting minority students did not amount to discrimination against whites and Asian-Americans.
Through this admissions policy, some African-American, Hispanic-American, and Native American groups have received preferential treatment in the admissions process, while Asian-Americans and whites have been squeezed out of their places.
Image source: USA TODAY
According to a new Pew Research Center report, three-quarters of Asian-Americans believe that race or ethnicity should not be a factor in the college admissions process.
The opponents, represented by Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that too many universities "use skin color as a symbol of personal worth rather than the skills cultivated, the courses studied and the challenges it goes through," and that this is an outright mistake.
02
Have Chinese children climbed the vine increased?
One organization that played a key role in the eight-year ruling was the College Student Fair Admissions Organization, which represents students who are inextricably affected by race to get into elite universities.
The predominantly Asian-Americans who drove the group's founding and activities were ruled in favor of the U.S. High Court.
This has given many Chinese parents hope: Does the Chinese child, who is also of Asian descent, increase the chance of climbing the vine?
Image source: unsplash.com
However, the facts are not necessarily what everyone would like.
First, the impact of this ruling on admissions policy remains ambiguous.
Unlike the Chinese college entrance examination, the admissions policy of American universities does not take scores as the only reference standard, but comprehensively considers many factors such as students' academic performance, extracurricular activities, sports, personality, religion, alumni, and donor preferences.
Therefore, what the admissions offices of American universities need to do is to reselect and prioritize various factors, rather than directly increasing the acceptance rate of a certain race.
Even if race is removed, Chinese students do not have an advantage in many other indicators.
IMAGE CREDIT: E&E NEWS
Second, the ruling was led by conservative American judges, whose primary goal was to protect the interests of white Americans.
As a result, the reduced number of minority places will not necessarily go to Asian-Americans, let alone Chinese children.
Researchers once conducted such an experiment, sending 6,500 professors in 259 universities and 89 majors in the United States exactly the same content, expressing their desire to be doctoral students on the other side.
The emails are uniquely signed and designed to allow professors to identify ethnicity by applicants' names and observe feedback they reject or receive.
The results of the study show that there is widespread discrimination against minorities among professors in the United States, and that Asians are the most discriminated against.
Obviously, discrimination against Asians is still the mainstream of American society, whether Asian Americans or international students, the difficulty of applying to prestigious American schools will not be reduced by this judgment.
03
What kind of equity should a top university pursue?
The "race-based admissions policy" was ruled unconstitutional, reminiscent of last year's abortion rights bill in the United States.
In May 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade ruling, outlawing women's right to abortion that had been recognized by U.S. law for nearly 50 years, and allowing states to enact their own abortion laws.
What both cases have in common is that they both represent the views of American conservatives and have accelerated the fragmentation of American society.
At both ends of this divide are people's different attitudes towards vulnerable and minority groups, as well as different understandings of fairness in the admissions process of elite universities.
Image source: CNBC, USA
The "racial quota" system, which was judged unconstitutional, represented the idea of procedural fairness: the idea that a person, regardless of their origin or experience, should compete on the same level and not receive preferential treatment because of their race.
For students, this could indirectly increase the proportion and number of Asian-American students admitted to top universities.
"Affirmative action" represents the idea of equitable outcomes: because people of different races have different access to education, and ethnic minorities have disadvantages in educational resources, ensuring their access to school can balance the educational opportunities of all races in terms of outcomes.
In fact, there are similar admissions policies in China, such as national special programs and special rural programs in some poor areas.
Due to the huge gap in educational resources between poor rural areas and first-tier cities, children from rural areas may have made more efforts than urban children, but still cannot achieve the same achievements.
Therefore, through the setting of special programs, more children can be given higher education opportunities, and children can be taught to understand the world from diverse and inclusive perspectives.
What kind of fairness should universities insist on? This is a question of reflection left by the judgment to all societies.
Image source: unsplash.com
For Chinese parents and children, this verdict is only a small episode on the child's climbing the vine, and will not have a substantial impact on the child's academic planning.
But understanding the changes in American society behind the verdict is important.
With an environment of discrimination and division on the one hand, and the world's top educational resources on the other, the advantages and costs are equally sobering, regardless of the choices made.
Perhaps, climbing the vine is not the end of parenting and chicken dolls, and understanding what kind of environment is more suitable for children is the most important lesson for parents.