Posted on 06/09/2012 3:24:32 PM PDT by rhema
Like many colleges and universities, Princeton professes its devotion to “institutional equity and diversity.” The university’s website claims that the school “actively seek[s] students, faculty, and staff of exceptional ability and promise who . . . will bring a diversity of viewpoints and cultures,” before explaining that “examples of personal characteristics that confer diversity of viewpoint and culture include but are not limited to gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, national origin,” etc.
The U.S. Department of Education may beg to differ. Since 2008, according to a spokesman, its Office for Civil Rights has been investigating whether the school “discriminates against Asians, on the basis of race or national origin, in its admissions process”—that is, whether students of Asian descent are being penalized for their background when applying to the school. Princeton, for its part, said through a spokesman, “We treat each application individually and we don’t discriminate on the basis of race or national origin. . . . We evaluate applications in a holistic manner, and no particular factor in the admission process is assigned a fixed weight. There is no formula for weighing the various aspects of the application.” One could be forgiven for wondering how the claim that the school “does not discriminate on the basis of race or national origin” does not contradict its mission to “actively seek students” who “bring a diversity of viewpoints and cultures,” though. After all, doesn’t trying to foster a diverse student body necessitate some form of race-based decision making?
This isn’t to single out the Tigers. Indeed, Princeton is far from alone in being accused of anti-Asian bias in admissions. In August of last year, an Indian-American student filed a complaint with the Department of Education against Harvard alleging anti-Asian discrimination in its admissions department. (The student ultimately withdrew the complaint in February 2012.) Michele Hernández, author of A Is for Admissions and former admissions staffer at Dartmouth, recently said that “after 10 years of [counseling] and 4 years in Dartmouth admissions, I don’t think it’s intentional, but I think there is discrimination. If you look at the numbers, you can basically see that [if you are applying to many selective colleges] you have to have higher-than-average scores if you are an Asian.”
Asian Americans routinely outperform all other groups, including Caucasians, in academic achievement, a pattern that has been observed since at least the mid-1980s. By eighth grade, “the percentage of Asian American students scoring in the upper echelons on math exams was 17 points higher than the percentage of white students,” reports the Washington Post. When it’s time to apply for college, the gap continues: In 2010, the last year for which data were available, the average SAT score for Asian Americans was 1636, versus 1580 for Caucasian students, 1369 for Mexicans and Mexican Americans, and 1277 for African Americans.
But as Asian Americans have risen through the academic ranks, some claim that they’ve become the “new Jews”—a group considered to be “overrepresented” in elite academia.
Data bear this out. A Center for Equal Opportunity study, cited on the Manhattan Institute’s website in the wake of the Harvard complaint, found that Asian applicants to the University of Michigan in 2005 had a median SAT score that was “50 points higher than the median score of white students who were accepted, 140 points higher than that of Hispanics and 240 points higher than that of blacks.” The center also found that “among applicants with a 1240 SAT score and 3.2 grade point average in 2005, the university admitted 10 percent of Asian Americans, 14 percent of whites, 88 percent of Hispanics and 92 percent of blacks.” As further evidence, consider that “after the state of California abolished racial preferences, the percentage of Asian Americans accepted at Berkeley increased from 34.6 percent in 1997, the last year of legal affirmative action, to 42 percent entering in fall 2006,” clear evidence that the group had been unfairly penalized under the previous regime.
Ironically enough, one of the most revealing studies of this phenomenon was conducted by one of Princeton’s own. In 2009, Thomas Espenshade, a Princeton professor of sociology, co-authored a report that revealed students of Asian descent did indeed face discrimination at colleges and universities beyond the Ivy League. According to Espenshade’s analysis, an Asian student needs to score 140 points higher than whites on the math and reading portions of the SAT, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points higher than blacks to have the same chances of admission at the nation’s top schools. “[A]ll other things equal,” Espenshade told Inside Higher Ed, “Asian-American students are at a disadvantage relative to white students, and at an even bigger disadvantage relative to black and Latino students.”
To supporters of affirmative action, the practice has two major benefits—one positive and one punitive. For one, they say that it’s a necessary corrective to grave historical injustices. Two—and this they don’t often say out loud—affirmative action punishes those who are perceived to have benefited from (or even personally perpetrated) the politics of racial supremacy.
But in both cases—even if one accepts those justifications—discriminating against Asians is indefensible. Indeed, it can be reasonably argued that Asian Americans have endured more discrimination than American Hispanics, who benefit from affirmative action as it is currently executed. And Asian Americans can hardly be accused of oppressing other racial groups en masse. As S. B. Woo, former lieutenant governor of Delaware and current director of the Asian-American advocacy organization the 80-20 Initiative, says, “there is no historical rationale that justifies forcing Asian Americans to bear the burden of preference, more than other Americans.” Indeed, given the historical injustices suffered by Americans of Asian descent—Japanese internment, the Chinese Exclusion Act—in an honest affirmative action regime, they would stand to benefit.
The times may be a changin’, though. This fall, the Supreme Court will hear a case brought by a white student who says she was denied admission to the University of Texas on account of her Caucasian background. Consequently, racial preferences in college admissions could be banned altogether—a real possibility, given the Court’s relatively conservative bent.
But until then, Asian applicants may continue to have to leap a higher bar than others. Unsurprisingly, the Associated Press reported late last year that increasing numbers of Asian applicants are neglecting to identify themselves as such—students of mixed descent, for example, fail to mention their Asian heritage at all, checking the box for “Caucasian” and leaving “Asian” blank.
Maybe they should check “Native American” instead.
Of course Asian-Americans are being disriminated against in acadameia along with other venues. How many do you see in government jobs? The reason just might be that they have a work ethic, not an aversion to work ethic that other groups seem to have a genetic disposition towards.
My great, great grandmother was full Cherokee. Mt other GGG was from Denmark. I like to gamble and sunburn easy.
Yeah, 0bummer’s incompetent/inept/moronic idiot Sec’y of Energy Steven Chu did a real great job of making that case for all Asian-Americans, didn’t he?
The Schools in CA including trade and professional are packed with Asians, mostly from Asia. What better for a University’s bottom line since they pay full boat in cash?
Gee, no racism or discrimnation in THOSE numbers huh? Lefty racists have perfectly mimicked Orwell's pigs.
One reason why the left and certain minorities - particularly blacks - despise Asians is because Asians harpoon a major plank of their religion, which claims that non-whites can't make it in America.
Their philosophy is largely based on envy, class warfare and race pimping. Asians throw a stick in their spokes, by proving them wrong.
Probably wishful thinking on your part. Most asians identify themselves as democrats.
One point many seem to forget is that there is no such thing as an “Asian” race, going by the technicality of the definition of the term used in government forms and the like: ‘Asian’ includes people from China, Japan, Korea, and notably, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, etc.
The races from all of these nations are not homogeneous: Most Indians fit the definition of ‘Caucasian’, and are closer to this term both linguistically and genetically, but are legally ‘Asian’.
Likewise with the ‘West Asians’ who are classified as ‘White’.
I’m not sure “race” is what’s involved here. Identifiably endogamous groups will not only develop an identifiable genetic profile, but will also transmit more uniform cultural norms. “Race” probably doesn’t exist scientifically.
The example of the Vietnamese boat people -- arriving here in the 70's with just the clothing they wore and speaking little or no English, and having their kids be the valedictorians twenty years later -- must be especially galling.
Not sure what this has to do with anything - my (completely non-wishful) post was an observation on how leftists and blacks view Asians, not how you claim Asians view themselves.
Where do you find those statistics? Most of the Asians I know are Korean and identify strongly with Republican principals and values. I do not think I have actually met anyone from that community that would confess to voting democrat.
...In terms of partisanship, Asian Americans most identify as Democrats than as Republican, 32% to 14%, respectively. One in five identify themselves as Independents and the largest number of respondents, thirty-five percent, do not identify themselves as Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
These preferences vary among ethnic group: Asian Indian and Japanese Americans most strongly identify as Democrats, and were the strongest supporters of Obama, 52% and 60%, respectively. Vietnamese Americans most strongly identify as Republicans, and were more likely to support McCain than Obama, 51% to 24%. Chinese Americans (70%) are the least likely to identify as either Democrat or Republican, but were more supportive of Obama. Filipino and Korean likely voters favor Obama over McCain.
Overall, 41% of Asian American likely voters supported Obama, 24% supported McCain...
WOW that’s interesting. Guess it’s maybe the Koreans in my community that go conservative. Comes down to the company we keep i guess.
First problem is the very high concentration of East Asian ancestry folks in Hawaii, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle. That skews the results.
As the economy began its spiral into bankruptcy (the Great Obama Recession) they were right up against the wall economically and voted in desperation for the supposed messiahbama.
Obviously they were wrong.
What I find interesting in that whole mess ~ small business owners wanting socialized medicine ~ is that it was not the broad masses who thought they'd get ahead, but the very core of what ought to be a main constituent of the Republican party ~ to wit, store keepers!
Well, I guess they've figured out that part by now. If not they'll be voting to give ObamaKKKare another try.
So if AA is to remedy past discrimination, how does a WASP raised biracial of slave owning stock but no slave or JimCrow blood get to benefit. Or a blue eyed WASP whose family expelled the Cherokees but pretends to have Cherokee blood get to benefit?
Indians now put down white on college apps.
Asians should have so bad....
“Where do you find those statistics? Most of the Asians I know are Korean and identify strongly with Republican principals and values. I do not think I have actually met anyone from that community that would confess to voting democrat.”
There’s a number of factors at work. First, the Dems hook-in the Asians by addressing their number one issue, which is immigration (i.e., family unification). They reach out in their language and make darn sure that Asians understand that all Republicans want to seal up the borders, tighter than East Germany. Obviously not true - but the Republicans are clueless enough to let them own that market...and it doesn’t hurt that the Dems own the media too.
When it comes to preferences, Asians seem to pretty much put up with it. They don’t like to make waves, and like Jews, they can’t be held down economically in this country. So if they don’t get into Princestone University (PU), they get into Rutgers, clean everyone’s clock there, and get great jobs or research assignments with their 4.0s. Exactly the opposite of what happens to blacks that get pushed up to PU because of their skin color - they never have a chance against the students that earned their way there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.