Affirmative Action's Rightful Place in the College Admissions Process

Asian Americans across the country have been intently watching the case against Harvard University by Students for Fair Admissions in recent weeks. The case has placed affirmative action, a controversial policy that has promoted diversity in America’s most prestigious educational institutions, under scrutiny.

Students for Fair Admissions, the plaintiff in this US district court case, has argued that Harvard is “employing racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and procedures in administering the undergraduate admissions program” largely through affirmative action. Harvard, meanwhile, has contended that the policy helps the university “achieve a diverse student body.”

Make no mistake, Asian American students are disadvantaged when applying to high-ranked schools. First, it’s unreasonable to assume that the same racial bias that exists in America does not exist in the college admissions process. More notably, Asian Americans are hurt by affirmative action because it groups them together during the admissions process. This makes it more challenging for each qualified applicant to stand out. As a result, getting accepted from this pool of largely-qualified applicants is more difficult.

I personally fall into the Asian American demographic -- a body that includes diligent overachievers whose immaculate resumes show 1600s on SATs and 36s on ACTs, 4.0 GPAs, valedictorian honors, and a plethora of other venerable academic achievements. Under a strictly-merit base system, these standout Asian Americans would be far more likely to secure spots. Affirmative action’s diversity requirement, however, means that qualified Asian Americans are going to lose out, so uniqueness is a valuable commodity.

As I prepare to apply to schools this time next year, I’m frequently made aware of this value. Parents and counselors remind me of the attractiveness of an Asian American applicant that can separate him/herself from the competent swath of other Asian American students. As a result, I am swayed towards a packed schedule of extracurriculars, reminded that I must aim to obtain leadership positions, and urged to join clubs and volunteer in my community. In my case, I push myself in golf and running -- coincidentally two sports that Asian Americans don’t tend to play -- and strive to be a leader in my school. As my father puts it, these extra pieces to the puzzle function as the “icing to the cake,” helping to make me a more distinguishable and thus more intriguing applicant. (I feel that I must note that I don’t participate in these activities just to embellish my application, but rather because I genuinely enjoy these activities and feel that they have been instrumental in my development as a person.)

Surely, ending affirmative action and removing race from the college admissions process -- as is being argued by Students for Fair Admissions and conservative advocates -- would help me. No longer would I be grouped into the aforementioned bucket of exceptional Asian Americans, thus making my qualifications more recognizable.

So wouldn’t it be logical for me to hope that Students for affirmative action wins its case?

The answer is no. And there are multiple reasons.

First, the supposition that ending affirmative action will drastically improve acceptance is unfounded: Harvard’s acceptance rate is 5.6% for all applicants, and only around 20% of “qualified” applicants get admitted. This means that the process is subject to unpredictability, meaning that there is no guarantee a student will be accepted even if it seems like he or she should be. (I can attest to this based on my share of qualified relatives who were ultimately denied a spot at Harvard and other top schools.)

This ultimately exposes the issue that lies within many Asian-immigrant parents: an unwavering conviction that their children deserve an acceptance letter. This means that parents become resentful when their children are rejected because they are convinced that their children exceed the standards for acceptance. However, these parents fail to consider the aforementioned randomness of the system and the unthinkable possibility that their children are not “Ivy League material.” When combined with a mentality of “Harvard or bust,” disappointment turns into a need to blame something else. Affirmative action is the inevitable target, even though ending it will change neither of these things.

Blaming the policy is simply unacceptable when we consider who loses without it. The function of affirmative action in college education is to protect underrepresented minorities. The evidence of the policy’s importance is most obvious in schools where it is absent. For example, at Cal Berkeley, the 22nd-ranked university according to US News’ national university rankings, the student body is just 3% African American because the school does not utilize affirmative action. Meanwhile, this year’s freshman class at Berkeley is 40.3% Asian American.  Clearly, already disadvantaged applicants -- primarily African Americans and Hispanics -- are going to suffer.

I know that African Americans and Hispanics need affirmative action because of my experiences in two vastly different communities.

A little over a year ago, I moved to a town about 30 miles north of Manhattan. The median household income is around $105,000, and the school system is revered for college preparation and high acceptance rates into top schools. The school district is 78% white but just 1% African American. Loads of tax money -- collected from affluent families -- are diverted towards funding the school system, giving students access to advanced technology and well-supported teachers. Additionally, many students within the district -- myself included -- can afford high-end laptops, supplemental tutoring, review materials, college essay specialists, application counselors, diagnostic testing and preparatory work for the SAT and ACT, and multiple attempts at these exams.

Previously, I lived in a town in upstate New York that has a median household income of around $33,500. My old school district is 24% African American and 50% Hispanic, and graduation rates have floated around 70%. Many peers and friends in this predominantly African American/Hispanic district could not afford technology, tutors, practice materials for standardized tests, or multiple attempts at these standardized tests. Not coincidentally, Ivy League admissions are normally limited to 1-3 students per year out of a graduating class of around 700 students.

Are these students any less intelligent? Of course not. Many students just have lower baselines because they can’t access beneficial resources; simply put, the playing field is not even when applying to colleges. The role of affirmative action is to compensate for this disparity by accounting for these disadvantages -- the disadvantages that I saw first hand in my previous school. If affirmative action is abolished, any low-income African American or Hispanic student will see their chances dwindle greatly.

Asian Americans are being pawned in this case by Edward Blum, the conservative lawyer heading the lawsuit. Blum has called repeatedly for ending affirmative action in cases using white plaintiffs, but each attempt has failed. Finally, Blum’s odds look more promising because he has legitimized his case with Asian American plaintiffs. Blum is essentially exploiting the frustration of Asian Americans in order to advance his scheme to secure more spots for white students. In doing so, he is -- perhaps intentionally -- ensuring African Americans and Hispanics don’t infiltrate America’s most elite institutions.

Wouldn’t it be ironic -- especially in today’s America -- for one minority to disenfranchise another minority? By pushing for our own academic opportunities, we would be depriving other minorities of the same opportunities. This is morally unacceptable in a political climate that has seen the marginalization of all American minorities. We would be applying a double standard if we reaped the benefits of a proposal that further mistreats already-dehumanized populations.

To reduce discrimination without diminishing other minorities, Asian Americans must target legacy admissions. At many top schools, including Harvard, legacies account for a significant chunk of admitted applicants. In Harvard’s Class of 2021, 29% of accepted applicants were legacy students, and these students have around a 40% higher chance of getting accepted than standard applicants, according to the Washington Post. Legacy students offer the promise of endowment, donations that fund these schools. While it’s incorrect to state that all legacy students are underqualified, a sizeable portion of these students are deemed to be below the qualifications of top universities. Data from Naviance, an online application resource, estimates that around 20% of legacy students fall below these presumed standards.

Legacy students, not African Americans and Hispanics, are taking Asian Americans’ spots. Rather than unjustly -- and hypocritically -- targeting other minorities, Asian Americans must attack the institutionalized elitism that exists in the nation’s top schools.