Does Harvard University discriminate against Asian-Americans? That’s the question now before a federal court in Boston. On Friday, a nonprofit claiming the university illegally discriminates filed a trove of admissions documents as part of its case.
The plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions, point out that a study conducted by Harvard itself concluded that being Asian-American decreased an applicant’s chances of entry. The university never published that study and vigorously opposed its release. Further, an independent analysis conducted by a Duke economics professor suggests that a male Asian-American applicant with a 25 percent chance of acceptance would improve his chances to 36 percent if he were white, 75 percent if he were Hispanic, and 95 percent if he were African-American.
Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly upheld the right of colleges and universities to use race as a factor in admissions for the purpose of ensuring racial diversity on campus. But that is not the tack Harvard seems to be taking. The university’s attorneys hotly dispute analyses of its admissions records purporting to prove racial discrimination. They’re not claiming, in other words, that the university’s use of race is constitutionally and statutorily proper; they’re claiming, in this case at least, that the university isn’t using race at all.
The school’s attorneys argue that college admissions aren’t based simply on academics: They’re also based on extracurricular work, academic achievements, and “personal” aptitudes. Asian-American applicants, they contend, score extremely well on academics but less well on personal factors. That “personal” category is subjective—it encompasses “positive personality,” for instance, and “kindness.” The plaintiffs may have a tough time proving racial discrimination beyond doubt.
On the other hand, there must be very few honest observers who seriously believe the university is not using race as a factor in limiting the number of Asian-Americans it admits. Anyone familiar with the ordinary behavior of top-tier universities will conclude that of course Harvard is using the factor of race to exclude some Asian-American applicants who would otherwise be admitted. The case won’t be easy for the plaintiffs, but common sense is on on their side. Judge Allison Burroughs—who, incidentally, is one of the only federal judges in Boston who didn’t attend Harvard Law (she’s a Penn Law graduate)—has scheduled the case for October.
The question raised by the Harvard suit—should schools consider race at all in their admissions policies?—has also come to the fore in New York City. Stuyvesant High School, Brooklyn Technical High School, and the city’s six other specialized high schools admit students strictly on the basis of an academic test. No interviews, no extracurricular records, no nebulous categories judging “personal” qualities. Although the schools’ student populations are racially diverse by any definition, a disproportionate number are Asian-American. Mayor Bill de Blasio, in an apparent effort to give more slots to African-American and Hispanic students, has announced that admission will in the future be granted to the city’s top middle-school students, however they might score on the test.
As in the Harvard admissions case, the new admissions policy for New York’s specialized schools has mainly to do with the presence of too many Asian-Americans and too few African-Americans and Hispanic students. Although we believe it to be constitutionally and morally improper for a school or a university to consider the racial identity of its applicants, we grant that the temptation to do so is understandable.
For a half-century, liberal school administrators—especially those at the nation’s most prestigious institutions—have sought to use the power of admission to further the cause of racial diversity at the higher levels of American society. They’ve striven to admit more blacks (and, in recent years, more Latinos) than strictly merit-based admissions policies would allow. It’s an understandable desire, and in some ways a decent one. But there’s no getting around the fact that these policies involve the very illiberal practice of racial discrimination. Students are rejected because they’re the wrong race.
Just as important: Those policies haven’t worked. Is there greater racial harmony on today’s campuses than there was, say, 20 or 30 years ago? Have enlightened race-motivated admissions policies made America a more racially tolerant nation? Have racial grievances, on either the part of whites and Asians or less advantaged races, lessened as a result of affirmative action? The answer is No.
Colorblind admissions policies, and indeed colorblind justice, will not solve America’s race problem. But race-conscious laws and policies have not fulfilled their promise. In fact they’ve exacerbated racial animosities. Perhaps the Harvard case will, in time, set America on a better course.
