Acts of bigotry in the form of verbal abuse and physical violence against Asian Americans are certainly matters of concern. Also of concern are more subtle forms of bigotry, whether or not deliberately intended, against Asian Americans in both our public schools and in some of our institutions of higher learning.
Currently, before the United States Supreme Court is the question of whether efforts to limit the number of Asian Americans enrolled at Harvard and the University of North Carolina constitute unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of race. Harvard and UNC argue that they each want to create a “diverse” student body and rely on previous Supreme Court cases—Bakke and Gutter, especially—which say that the achievement of affirmative action and diversity goals fulfill a compelling public interest and that race can be a “plus factor” in determining who may be admitted—and who excluded.
The Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., the plaintiff in each case, argues that “Today, Harvard’s ‘personal rating’ in the admissions process is used to evaluate Asian-American applicants based on prejudicial assumptions and stereotypical characteristics with the intention of reducing the admissions of Asian-Americans. Harvard uses a ‘personal rating’ in the admissions process today that examines, among other characteristics, an applicant’s ‘leadership,’ ‘self-confidence,’ ‘likeability,’ and ‘kindness’ as evidenced by the applicant’s interview, essays, extracurricular activities, letters of recommendation, and anything else in the application. Harvard denies using race in connection with how it scores applicants on the personal rating, but the data reveal that the low personal ratings for Asian Americans, as a group, reduce their admissions to a statistically significant degree. African-American applicants, as a group, routinely receive the highest personal ratings, followed by…
Read the full article here
