Harvard, HPRgument Blog — February 9, 2010 10:00 am

The Asian Ceiling

By

Yale admissions office reader Kara Miller wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe yesterday alleging discrimination against Asian-Americans in college admissions. She cited a study from Thomas Espenshade, Princeton sociologist, who found that Asians on average needed an extra 140 SAT points to compete with white students. Surprise!

I don’t think anyone will find it unexpected that racial considerations are used in elite admissions offices to ensure a certain level of Asian representation in student bodies (Say, 15–20%). I pick my words carefully here—nothing about quotas or limits—as admissions office pick their words carefully too. Ms. Miller reports this statement from a Princeton spokesperson:

The university does not admit students in categories. In the admission process, no particular factor is assigned a fixed weight and there is no formula for weighing the various aspects of the application.

None of this is untrue. Indeed the “university does not admit students in categories.” Each application is read and judged individually, no blocs are formed, no group quotas met. “No particular factor is assigned a fixed weight.” Sure, but that doesn’t reject the claim that race can and does impart negative weight to an application. There’s no “formula,” but I’m sure this equation looks familiar: Asian + 2400 + piano prodigy = oh, just another one. Would this equation be false if that first term were different? Very possibly. Admissions offices can obfuscate all they want, but the fact is that racial considerations are used in rejecting some Asian applicants.

Ms. Miller appeals back to America’s founding values to declare this practice unjust:

In a country built on individual liberty and promise, that feels deeply unfair. If a teenager spends much time studying, excels at an instrument or sport, and garners wonderful teacher recommendations, should he be punished for being part of a high-achieving group? Are his accomplishments diminished by the fact that people he has never met – but who look somewhat like him – also work hard?

Based on the premise that colleges seek to admit the most accomplished individual students, this argument seems pretty ironclad. If the sole mission of an Ivy League admissions office is to cherry-pick the best and brightest students from the applicant pool, then absolutely, Asians are discriminated against. Asian ethnicity is a distinct and serious disadvantage.

However, if an admissions office’s goal is to build a class, to create a student body that is balanced, unique, and interesting, then the calculus changes entirely, and the practice is far more justifiable. In California, where racial considerations in admissions are illegal, Asians make up 40% of public universities but 13% of the population.

There lies the problem for Asian-Americans. Asians are in fact a somewhat homogenous group background-wise. The vast majority of us are first-generation Americans, whose cultures (and parents) do emphasize the importance of education and hard work.

Do various unifying heritages make Asians all the same? Absolutely not. The model minority narrative strips high-achieving Asians-Americans of individualism. Still, Asian-Americans do share similar backgrounds, and I think universities are justified in seeking out students with unique and contrasting stories for education’s sake.

So are Asians the new Jews as Ms. Miller contends? No, the college discrimination of eras past reflected underlying racism and disrespect. Today’s colleges welcome Asians with open arms—they just don’t want too many of us.

Photo Credit: Tom Sackton on flickr.

Related posts:

How Well is the Welfare State?
The Truly Persecuted Harvard Minority
The Real Waste of Time
Obama Bribed Voters With "Binders Full Of Contraceptives"
Tags:
Jonathan Yip Jonathan Yip '13 was the Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Political Review in 2012. His favorite font is Gotham Condensed (see HPR logo).
  • Sam Barr

    Jonathan,

    I’m not sure where you come down on this. What’s your final word on anti-Asian discrimination?

    One comment: It does seem to be the case that racists and diversity-fans would share some similarities in thinking about this issue. It seems they both would think, What would college be like if the student body were 50% Asian? (Or substitute some other minority group if you like.) The racists would say, that would be terrible, because we don’t like Asians and want nothing to do with them! The lovers of diversity would say, that would be terrible, because we like all groups equally, and we want them to coexist and mingle and learn from each other.

    So, same conclusion (setting an informal bar on Asian admissions is okay), similar thought processes… but very different rationales. No wonder it’s unclear whether the op-ed writer is saying admissions officers are prejudiced or just mistaken.

  • Jonathan Yip

    My thought is that admissions officers are neither prejudiced nor mistaken. They are right to seek diverse student bodies. Yes, Asian-American discrimination exists, but it is not at the root of these admissions policies, because let’s face it, Asian-Americans are similar in some ways that would hurt a student body that was 50% Asian. It’s certainly a tough issue to suss out.

  • Pingback: Weighing in: The Asian Ceiling » The HPRgument

  • Gus Levy

    “…because let’s face it, Asian-Americans are similar in some ways that would hurt a student body that was 50% Asian.”

    Please, can you elaborate on this throw-away line which to me is the other image in this optical illusion picture that many seem to accept as existing but won’t define it. Many in this debate clearly accepts that there is de facto discrimination of Asian-Americans in some form or method from the selective US universities but then shepherd the debate towards silly things like the efficacy of the SAT or whether it is simply an unprovable good to limit AAs as some of these universities clearly do. It is my opinion that your phrase “Asian-Americans are similar in some ways that would hurt a student body” is exactly the justification for the argument that discriminating AAs is an unprovable good: I would like to know in what specific ways an institution of higher learning is inherently “hurt” if a university that would otherwise have 50% AA population limits this population to 20%.

  • Pingback: Three Weeks of HPRgument » The HPRgument

  • Gus Levy

    Greetings…was hoping for a response from Mr. Yip on my simple request for him to specify on the meaning of his statement. It has been almost a month and I am puzzled as to why it hasn’t been responded to since it directly relates to both the article that he wrote and his response statement #2. I have no desire to debate the issue at all: I would simply like to understand the arguments in this debate which is an important one.

  • Jonathan Yip

    My thoughts on the line are conveyed here: “There lies the problem for Asian-Americans. Asians are in fact a somewhat homogenous group background-wise. The vast majority of us are first-generation Americans, whose cultures (and parents) do emphasize the importance of education and hard work.”

    Any institution of higher learning is hurt when its students or faculty fail to reflect the significant diversity of background or thought that’s out there. Having a student body comprised 50% of Asian-Americans, I argue, would meet that criterion. In that regard, I don’t think it’s an “unprovable good.” It is, perhaps, just a “good.”

  • Gus Levy

    “Asians are in fact a somewhat homogenous group background-wise. The vast majority of us are first-generation Americans, whose cultures (and parents) do emphasize the importance of education and hard work.”

    Well, the reading of your response seems clear that your argument to limit the Asian-American population is actually a “provable good” rather than it simply being an unprovable one because you argue that the AA population is homogenous background-wise in that they are primarily first-generation Americans who are from cultures that emphasize education and hard work. I would accept your argument – not that I would believe it – if you stated that to limit the AA population is probably good since they are primarily first-generation Americans who all look alike physically and have the perception of being from cultures that promote introversion in normal situations which may potentially limit the physical and intellectual capacities of a university environment. However, that they are from cultures which” emphasize the importance of education and hard work” is used as the defense to limit their population in a UNIVERSITY despite the intellectual and academic merits is literally laughable.

    You can make innumerable arguments that would be more practical and logical than using the one you make. In my opinion, your argument is inherently one of the most racist opinions that I have ever heard: It is my understanding that Asians are of extremely diverse backgrounds politically, religiously, geographically and certainly economically but all that is thrown out the window in your argument. Individuals of Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Indian, Pakistani, Indonesian, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Mongolian, etc. backgrounds are from cultures that “emphasize the importance of education and hard work” so their aggregate student population at Harvard must be limited! Fantastic…

  • Jonathan Yip

    Gus, you fail to understand my argument in several key ways:

    1) That my point is focused on Asian-Americans is irrelevant. Were ANY group to constitute 50% of a university, it would be good to diversify the student body. This is the underlying premise—everything else is icing on the cake. Unless you reject this premise, which I think no reasonable person could, we basically agree.

    2) You call my argument inherently racist, but it has nothing to do with race. Your criticism is orthogonal to my point. I’m talking about Asian-Americans—with emphasis on the American part. It’s about how the Asian background fits into the American experience, not about the actual Asian background.

    The hinging factor of my contention is “first-generation American.” First-generation Asian Americans are experientially similar. It’s a story of adaptation, fitting in, and Americanizing. Whether Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc., this experience is very much the same for all of us. The returns to diversity and experience are quickly diminishing for groups of first-generation Asian-Americans. This is radically different from any other Americans whose families have lived in American for generations. There’s more of a diversity of experience by virtue of branching out over time.

  • Gus Levy

    I suspect there is no further need to spin the orthogonal spokes of this conversation: It is clear that your opinion on this matter is, by definition, a racist one. It may feel better to use the convenient smoke-screen of “diversity” but the twin goals of wanting a melting pot of races in this society while always striving for concomitant racial diversity is an logical impossibility.

    Short retorts to your pts:
    1) White non-Hispanics represent approx 50% of Harvard University.
    2) The conversation is about the “Asian Ceiling” which exists and is accepted by most people ex post facto but most parties will not accept as fact during the process. This conversation is an inherently “racial” discussion because Asian-Americans are the only victims of this hypocritical and unjust activity – the title is indeed “The Asian Ceiling”. There is no random generator to determine which race to cause injustice to in this conversation: It is only Asian-Americans and the fact that they have perceived “common backgrounds” in order to justify the injustice is a vapid one at best. You yourself have absolutely no idea about the backgrounds of those Asian-Americans who are victimized in this process and yet comfortably spew out these embarrassing politically acceptable stereotypes about Asian-Americans. It’s one thing for this racial stereotype of Asian-Americans to be perpetrated out of Hollywood but for a intelligent student at Harvard to do so seems pathetic and a bit sad.

  • Jonathan Yip

    Gus, I think we’re just at odds in this conversation and will have to accept that we just disagree.

    Just two things:

    a) Spokes are not orthogonal.

    b) I think it’s quite insensitive and rude of you to assume that I don’t know the backgrounds of these “victimized” Asian-Americans—if one can be considered “victimized” for not getting into Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. You don’t know my background or who I am. So stop throwing around “pathetic,” “vapid,” and “sad.”

    Let me ask you: do you know what it’s like to be a first generation Asian-American trying to get into a top-rate American university? Because I do.

  • Gus Levy

    Mr. Yip, I will respond only because you finish with a question/challenge.

    a) The creation of spokes is a science in itself. Orthogonal patterns are one of the methodologies. Having said that, surely you must understand that I only used that word as a wink and parez to your original utilization of that word – it would be petty for either of us to mention that word henceforth.

    b) I don’t know your background but you have stated that you are an Asian-American. In addition, the World Editor tag shows that you are a Harvard undergrad scheduled to graduate in 2012. By deductive reasoning, you are therefore an Asian-American who is not a victim of the “Asian Ceiling” since you were Accepted but curiously defend the practice as a “good” act for the Whole – be it provable or unprovable. Further, I would argue that I am neither insensitive nor rude to assume that you do not know the individual backgrounds of the victimized Asian-Americans: You are an undergraduate so it would be impossible by any stretch of the imagination to believe that you have any insight into the individual cases which form the complete injustice that is the Asian-Ceiling problem. Indeed, it would be in violation of Federal Laws for you to have any knowledge of any of the individual cases due to privacy concerns.

    Finally, concerning your last rhetorical question to me which is ironic in the sense that you seem to show some level of pride in actually having overcome the very same injustice of the Asian-Ceiling – which you argue in this conversation as an intrinsically “good” practice! – I would like to inform you that Gus Levy is a nom de plume that is taken from a character in The Confederacy of Dunces. Indeed, in response to your question, yes I do too.

  • Middle-Aged White Guy

    Gentlemen, Gentlemen! (I use the word “gentlemen” based on the assumptions that (1) the first name “Jonathan” and (2) the choice of a masculine nom de plume — or, in this instance, perhaps nom de guerre — indicate that both of you are male.)

    Yours is a good conversation to have; and my perception is that you are both proceeding in good faith.

    It would be a shame to risk damaging or destroying this discussiont by accusing one’s opponent not merely of being in error, but of having bad motives as well. Point out factual errors, unstated and/or unfounded assumptions, of course; but try to add more light and less heat. No matter how strongly one feels, getting angry rarely advances a dialogue.

    My ethnicity notwithstanding, I have a dog in this this fight. My daughter, adopted from China at 10 months, will be going to college in a couple of years. I am trying to figure out (1) whether her race (and/or the fact that she is of a different race than her mother and I) will be a help or a hindrance in getting into any particular school, and (2) whether It is appropriate that such even be a factor in in the admissions process. I would be interested in what both of you think.

custom writing