The Supreme Court will soon consider whether to take up the long-awaited question Students for fair admissions v. Harvard case, which pits Harvard’s race-conscious admissions process against a group of Asian-American applicants who do not fit Harvard’s idea of ”favored minorities.” The central idea behind the case is whether Harvard’s use of race to create what it sees as a “diverse” class violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Human Rights Act. civil rights.
If there is one area in which the American elite seem to evolve at the same pace, it is that of increasing racial diversity. Many Fortune 500 companies now operate diversity and inclusion offices. Each selective college is quick to tout its “diverse student body”. These initiatives sound good in theory, but the racial diversity movement too often comes at the expense of hiring or admitting the most qualified candidate. Increasingly, the qualified candidate who is denied is of Asian-American descent, a member of a minority group still viewed, for diversity purposes, as not in need of rescue.
The reason Harvard admissions officials do not view Asian Americans as a “minority” for assistance purposes is that Asian Americans are too successful to be helped. . As a group, Asian Americans are on socio-economic equality with whites; educationally, they overtake white people (although there is variation nationwide, as there is among any racial group). Yet Asian Americans did not gain their status in this country because of an inherited “privilege” – as many on the left claim white people did – but relentlessly focusing on academic preparation and self-reliance. As I write in my next book A disturbing minority, “Asian American students compete for their educational opportunities. . . Poor and rich Asians alike study an average of thirteen hours per week, more than twice as many as the typical non-Hispanic white student who studies just 5.5 hours per week at home. Harvard prefers to ignore the reality of the hard work and preparation of Asian American students i.e. their merit, and instead treats them in the admissions process as if they are a privileged bunch.
The consequence of considering the disadvantaged minorities of Asian Americans is clear: the less qualified individuals of other social groups get their chance before the more qualified Asian Americans. According to the Students for Fair Admissions analysis, a black Harvard applicant in the 40th academic percentile of all applicants is more likely to be admitted than an Asian American in the 90th academic percentile. Asians in the 90th percentile college are not favored over Hispanics in the 60th percentile and whites in the 80th percentile as well.
This phenomenon extends to medical schools and other higher schools. A 2017 study by the American Enterprise Institute found that a black American with a GPA of 3.2 to 3.39 and an MCAT of 24 to 26 (under an older MCAT rating system, since replaced) had ten times more likely to be admitted than an Asian American with the same scores, and a higher chance than even an Asian American with a GPA of 3.6 to 3.79 and an MCAT of 30 to 32.
Data on university admissions shows Asians retained between 15 and 20% of admissions to Harvard. The same data reveals similar effective quotas for other leading universities, including Yale, MIT and Stanford. As more and more Asians enter universities and perform well, universities are resorting to increasingly harsh racial balancing procedures against them.
Racial discrimination should not be tolerated at any professional level. Yet a vast network of racial discrimination exists at the university level against Asian-American students simply because they do not fit into a privileged minority category enjoyed by other races and ethnicities. It is a form of racial engineering that excludes one minority for the benefit of another. It should end — and the Harvard the affair is the occasion to put an end to it.
Photo by Pat Greenhouse / The Boston Globe via Getty Images