 |
| Students celebrating their graduation from Harvard Law Credit: Brian Snyder/Reuters |
Link to article ("Document Fight Slows Inquiry of Affirmative Action at Harvard")
Backstory article ("Affirmative Action Battle Has a New Focus: Asian-Americans")
In a lawsuit filed by the Student for Fair Admissions against Harvard, the extent to which affirmative action is administered throughout universities is being called into question. The assertion is that Harvard has discriminated against Asian American students during the admission process by "giving preferences to other racial minorities." In Fisher v. University of Texas, the Supreme Court essentially stated that race can be a factor in the admission process under the condition that doing so fosters a diverse environment that is beneficial to all. However, the lawsuit cites studies conducted by other universities that illustrate the average standardized test scores for Asian American students accepted into elite universities is substantially higher than that of both white students and students of other racial minorities. Statistically, the numbers are not in Harvard's favor, but the arguments ignore the purpose of affirmative action in taking race into account -- it is a facet that exemplifies only a part of a person, while the admissions officers must also take into account other factors, like economic standing and the opportunities different individuals have in the environments they were raised in.
The university has been asked to turn over records of student applications, but complications have arisen over the university's concern for privacy because the government is asking for records with identification information, which would be problematic should the records turn public. Consequently, the process of revealing applicant information has been slow, an effect that has been attacked as a "strategy of delay." Ultimately, the case is aimed to reach the Supreme Court and the Justice Department is considering on filing an amicus brief in the original lawsuit or to file in its own on the grounds that Harvard has intentionally discriminated against a race or that the discrimination has had "disparate impacts."
Questions to consider:
1. My perception of the original issue is that higher test scores and grades are generally indicative of a higher economic status, which is taken into account during the admissions process. Do you think this argument is sufficient support for the manner in which Harvard is defending affirmative action?
2. Is Harvard right to withhold student records over privacy concerns or do you think it's a strategic play to delay handing them over?
3. In class, we have learned that smaller groups will find it easier to challenge certain issues through litigation because the Constitution already exists and individual rights are listed. However, the issue arises in the enforcement of those rights. At the end of the article, it mentions that only the government can file "disparate impact claims," in which only discriminatory effects would be required to be proven, instead of the more difficult discriminatory intent. However, these claims are generally opposed in civil rights cases. What do you think the Justice Department ought to do? What do you think they will do?
3 comments:
I would agree that standardized test scores are more indicative of socioeconomic status as opposed to sheer intelligence. Most of the questions test basic skills that the vast majority of people are capable of learning or already know; the real 'test' is in learning how to approach test questions and manage time. People who have to keep jobs to pay for their expenses naturally have less time to practice than those who don't, and many can't afford expensive tutoring or test prep.
In general, Asians do tend to have higher scores than other minorities, which is mostly due to a combination of socioeconomic status and cultural values. This is why UC campuses have such a large percentage of Asians and Whites (almost 80%), as these campuses do not consider ethnicity to be a major factor to admissions. It does seem off to me that Harvard has such a disparity between the number of white people accepted and the number of Asians (45% to 16%), considering that these two demographics tend to have extremely similar average household incomes (asians slightly higher) and asians have a significantly higher likelyhood of holding a college degree than whites (53% to 36%) according to Pew Research Center, indicating a disparity between the average college demographic and that at Harvard. I would account the fact that 83% of the population of Massachusetts is White, compared to 6% Asian, and Harvard does get a lot of its undergrads from in-state feeder privates.
Race obviously shouldn't be the biggest factor in the decision to admit or reject a student. This being said, promoting a large and diverse campus still seems to me to be a compelling interest. Not all schools choose achieve this through affirmative action, but many people would agree that an extensive variety of cultures and perspectives is beneficial to a campus environment, and not all factors of a person's character can be quantified by standardized test scores.
I personally think it is a violation of privacy to release applicants' information.
Overall, I don't think that the court should/will rule against Harvard, as there are a variety of valid reasons they can present for their case, but we will see.
Higher test scores and higher GPAs do indicate a higher economic status. Many less affluent schools do not offer the AP course that more affluent schools like Aragon offer. This makes it literally impossible for students who attend these schools to get above a 4.0, which means that comparing weighted GPAs of students from areas with different socio-economic staus basically meaningless. In addition, the desparity between test scores of admitted students of different races is likely because the average SAT score of Asian Americans is higher than any other race, which is likely to do with familiar income and culture as Daniel has mentioned. This article (https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/) states that of students scoring between a 750 and 800, “60 percent are Asian and 33 percent are white, compared to 5 percent Latino and 2 percent black.” This means that it is extremely rare for a black or Latino student to do exceptionally well on their SATs while it is quite common for Asians and whites. This way, when colleges compare applicants of the same race, which they often do, a 1500 is extremely rare for a black or Latino applicants, but not nearly as uncommon for Asian or white applicants. While this is an incredibly complex issue, I believe that this is the reason for the trend of Asians needing to score better than whites or other minorities for admission. There are a lot of variables that are correlationally linked to race and higher SAT scores (as well as higher GPAs) and therefore I believe that it would be unfair to not consider race in admissions. As Daniel mentioned, the UC system which doesn’t consider race is made up of predominantly white and Asian students which disregards all of the obstacles that are unique to students from underrepresented minorities. If affirmative action is done away with completely, then the majority of schools (excluding HBCUs) will be majority white and Asian which pushes out people of color.
I agree that test scores can be an indicator of socioeconomic status because they are very much impacted by the ability to afford test prep programs, study materials, tutors, and the like. Many schools often insist that they review each of their applicants holistically, looking at each student as a whole person rather than categorize them based on test scores and academic records. In practice, however, top schools are getting thousands and thousands more applications each year, and with the applicant pool rapidly outgrowing admissions staff, many schools make first-round cuts based on test scores (https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/2012/09/29/the-three-biggest-lies-in-college-admission/#af499771754f). Thus, test scores are becoming increasingly more important for college admissions, so it doesn't make sense that there is a substantial difference in test scores between Asians and whites. Like Daniel said, they are about equal in financial status, and yet Asians are still held to a higher standard by schools such as Harvard. Thus, while I agree that test scores should be considered within the context of a prospective student's background, I think that Harvard and their affirmative action policy needs to be reconsidered in court.
Post a Comment