By Deacon Mike Manno
(The
Wanderer) - To answer the question above, a lot of Asians not
only think so, but also believe that Asians are being discriminated at all
levels of education and many put the blame on Critical Race Theory (CRT) and
affirmative action, provoking lawsuits against the offending schools. The gist
of the litigation is that Harvard, Yale, other colleges, and elite schools have
been using illegitimate racial quotas to cap the number of Asians granted
entry.
And all of this is leading many to call for an end to
affirmative action and Critical Race Theory in academic admissions.
A suit against Harvard, which is now on the Supreme Court
pending list, claims the school, by manipulating evaluation criteria for
applicants, disfavors Asian students. According to the Harvard suit, back in
December of 2012 a report in The New York Times alleged that the school had an
Asian student quota. The school responded by asking its Office of Institutional
Research (OIR) to investigate. The Internal OIR report found “evidence that
Asians are disadvantaged in the admissions process” and placed the blame on
Harvard’s use of a personal rating to evaluate a prospective student. It also
reported that being an Asian applicant “negatively correlated” with admission.
To place this in perspective, the Harvard admission process
uses race at every stage, including recruitment. There, Black and Hispanic high
school students with a PSAT score of 1100 and up are invited to apply, but
Asian applicants must score 1350 or above, higher than all other racial groups,
including whites. There comes a point when those tentatively approved for
admission are placed on a “lop list” list to winnow the field.
Those who are placed on that list are then evaluated using
four data points: legacy status, recruited athletic status, financial aid
eligibility, and race. Race was to be considered by creating a “personal
rating” score for each applicant by evaluating them four areas: leadership,
self-confidence, likability, and kindness. Black and Hispanic applicants are
then awarded racial preferences, but Asian applicants are not. It was in this
process that Asians scored the lowest.
In November of 2014, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.
(SFFA), filed a federal suit in Massachusetts on behalf of its members and
Asian students who were denied admission. Students for Fair Admissions,
according to its webpage, “is a nonprofit membership group of more than 20,000
students, parents, and others who believe that racial classifications and
preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and
unconstitutional. . . . A student’s race and ethnicity should not be factors
that either harm or help that student to gain admission to a competitive
university.”
According to the SFFA’s Supreme Court appeal, at the
district court, “Harvard’s admissions data revealed astonishing racial disparities
in admissions rates among similarly qualified applicants.” Yet in September of
2019 the district court ruled Harvard’s use of race was consistent with
applicable Supreme Court precedents, the leading one being a 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the
Supreme Court, in a case over racial preferences at the University of Michigan
Law School, ruled 5-4 that an admission process that favors “underrepresented
minority groups” is constitutional. On appeal the First Circuit affirmed.
The petition for review (writ of certiorari) was filed February 25 and as of this writing 20
amicus briefs have been filed on the
issue of certiorari.
In its petition, SFFA asks that the court overturn its
ruling Grutter. That holding, “that
schools can use race in admissions to pursue student body diversity is plainly
wrong,” and “Harvard’s admissions program does not comply with (the) court’s
precedents.” At Harvard, the petition states, “race is not ‘plus’ that is
always ‘beneficial’; it’s a minus for Asian Americans.”
In arguing that the
Grutter decision should be overturned, the certiorari petition argues that it is “grievously wrong” since the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “contains no exceptions: it
protects ‘any person’ from the denials of ‘the equal protection of the laws’”
and that “free governments demand the abolition of all distinctions founded on
color and race. . . . Grutter’s
diversity rationale is not only uncompelling; it flouts basic equal-protection
principles.
“If a university wants to admit students with certain
experiences (say, overcoming discrimination), then it can evaluate whether
individual applicants have that experience. It cannot simply use race as a
proxy for certain experiences or views.”
It also argues that Grutter
has “spawned significant negative consequences” in that it “sustains admission
programs that intentionally discriminate against historically oppressed
minorities. Jewish students were the first victims of holistic admissions, and
Asian Americans are the main victims today.”
This is not the only suit SFFA has filed. Edward Blum,
president of SFFA, said in a press release, “Yale, Harvard, the University of
North Carolina, the University of Texas, and many dozens of other highly
competitive colleges and universities employ admissions practices that are
discriminatory, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. Students applying to
undergraduate and post-graduate programs should be judged on their individual
talents, character, academic skills, extracurricular achievements, and socio-economic
background but not the color of their skin.”
Of course, this is not new to the Asian-American community
which is facing the bulk of academic discrimination.
In Fairfax County, Va., for example, Asian-American parents
are taking action against a local high school. Former Wall Street Journal reporter and parent, Asra Q. Nomani, is part of
a movement which is confronting the elite Thomas Jefferson High School for
Science and Technology for lowering its rigorist standards for admission to the
detriment of Asian students. She writes:
“To understand what’s behind this conflict, look no further
than the controversial ideology of critical race theory, which praises or
blames members of a particular race solely because they happen to be that race
and seeks to interpret all forms of perceived injustice through a racial lens.
This ideology has swept through America’s educational system at every level and
is erasing our different narratives as Asian-Americans from different
backgrounds and — to our shock — marginalizing our children and us.
“The ugly truth about critical race theory is that it
inevitably seeks to fight racial hierarchies by instituting new forms of racial
hierarchies. And Asian-American parents are increasingly taking notice. . . .
County school officials set out to correct the supposedly problematic
over-representation of Asian American students at TJ by watering down the
strict admission standards.”
And in an echo of the SFFA case against Harvard, she adds,
“Although the new process states it will ‘use only race-neutral methods,’ in
practice this subjective set of standards allows them to pick and choose the
students they prefer to achieve their desired racial balance and keep out too
many Asian-American students.”
Similar cases are now proceeding against schools in New
York City, Boston, and Washington State. Whether this movement will be able to
curb race-based admissions programs is yet to be seen. One of the problems the
Asian community faces, according to Nomani, is that as Asians have overcome
discrimination and achieved upward mobility, “we are now white by adjacency.”
She points to recent Black Lives Matter rioters who assaulted a rally
supporting merit-based education.
“Education is the main area where CRT attacked us,” she
wrote. “CRT, naturally, demands automatic preferences for blacks in admissions
to selective institutions and programs. That is unacceptable to us: Such racial
preferences come at the expense of our children, at the expense of academic
standards, and at the expense of basic fairness.”
She continued in reference to the Harvard suit: “Despite
never having met the applicants, Harvard admissions officers somehow conclude
that Asian applicants lack integrity and courage — directly contradicting
evaluations from interviewers who met the applicants, and from teachers who’ve
known the applicants for months if not years. If smearing Asians this way isn’t
hate speech, then what is? Call it diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
If blocking affirmative action in admissions is something
in which you are interested, this might be your time. But as I always caution,
if you are relying on the legal system, it will take time, and even then, the
Supreme Court has not even agreed to review the case, much less overrule the Grutter precedent.
Time will tell.
Update: Just after the above column was submitted, Senate
Democrats voted down an amendment from Senate Republicans to a hate crimes bill
which would have barred federal funding for any institution of higher education
that discriminates against Asian-Americans in recruitment, applicant review, or
admissions. The vote was 49 Republicans for and 48 Democrats against. It needed
60 votes to pass.
(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him
every Thursday morning at 10 CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com).
