The New Jews: They're Asian Americans.

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.

Remember some years ago when Ward Connerly led the successful fight to get rid of Affirmative Action in California schools and universities?

The law he got overturned gave Affirmative Action to Blacks and Hispanics....but EXCLUDED Asian-Americans. A lot of people did not realize this

Obviously, Affirmative Action in education is done because Liberals strongly believe that Blacks and Hispanics are unable to meet standard academic qualifications. Why would you exclude Asian-Americans (who also have a history of being abused and victims of racism) if you did not think this way...and thought only in terms of race/ethnicity?

Recently, I had a conversation with a high ranking clergyman. He is American, a graduate of West Point (taught there too), a VietNam vet whose wife if Korean. I have been trying to teach myself the Korean language and asked for his advice. In our talks, he told me that Koreans here in this part of the south were very hard working people, very religious and devout (Christian) and that they were up at 5AM to come to church daily. He told me they were very strong tithers. He implied that I would do well to emulate them (e.g., their work ethic) if I wanted to learn their language which is one of the more difficult to learn. I’ve met a number of them who personify this ethic. All are very hard working people who put in long hours. Of those I’ve met, their children are tops in their classes and almost all seek to learn classical music and other true arts. This includes the Viet Namese and Chinese families as well. Interestingly, to me at least, all of the Japanese restaurants here are owned by Koreans. I would like to see some accurate demographic data on these ethnic groups. I have not discussed politics with them ( except one couple from Thailand and they are vociferous Republicans) but I suspect most who vote do tend to vote conservative and I base this on their general outlook on life in America.

>>I’m not sure “race” is what’s involved here.

I like to write in “human” when race is requested on a form.

Drives my wife crazy.

No, there’s no discrimination.

It’s just a fact that if you’re Asian, you have to be a straight-A student with genius-level test scores, class president, captain of the football team, and an Eagle Scout to get in.

If you’re Black, on the other hand, you can be a congenital idiot, convicted felon, drug abusing flunk-out with abysmal test scores, and you’re in.

But, no, there’s no discrimination.

Meanwhile, the big thinking heavy hitters on the various admissions committees never pause to think how this set of circumstances - of which everyone with as much as two gray cells to rub together is aware - debases the value of a Black diploma.

But, then, it hardly matters, becuse the same set of biases are evident in hiring and promotion, as well.

I have not discussed politics with them ( except one couple from Thailand and they are vociferous Republicans) but I suspect most who vote do tend to vote conservative and I base this on their general outlook on life in America.

I'm going to suspect that the kind of people who put in long hours working and trying to improve themselves are not necessarily going to look favorably upon people who expect they can demand the fruits of Koreans' labor.

Then again, the Koreans in South Korea have their radical Leftists, so who can be sure?

I suspect your suspicions about hard workers not necessarily looking favorably upon their neighbors who are work challenged and who expect to be on the dole are correct.

I suspect also that the Korean “radical Leftists” tend to stay in Korea rather than immigrate to the US, the grand pooh bah of what is wrong in the world and the cause of South Korea’s problems or so these “leftists” think. Poor misguided souls.

It’s just a fact that if you’re Asian, you have to be a straight-A student with genius-level test scores, class president, captain of the football team, and an Eagle Scout to get in.

Having "Eagle Scout" on your academic resume would be an automatic disqualification for any Ivy League slot. The Scouts are considered a homophobic hate group, full of extreme right-wing teabaggers by the admissions staff.

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.