It’s often claimed that certain minority groups have advantages or disadvantages when it comes to getting into highly selective colleges. With today’s level of competition and value for diversity in the college process, these claims don’t seem so far-fetched, and in some cases, they’re undeniably true. In terms of advantages, we know that affirmative action policies from the Obama administration allow universities and colleges to consider race in admissions, and that these decisions have been held up in the Supreme Court. As for disadvantages, current information has begun to confirm people’s worst suspicions.
A recent lawsuit against Harvard University claims that the institution holds a quota on the number of Asian-American students accepted, and holds them to a higher standard than other applicants. We know that there are high numbers of Asian-American students that are qualified for spots in top schools, and that selective institutions that implement race-blind admissions processes may end up with disproportionately Asian-American student bodies. For example, the 2018 freshman class of UC Berkeley (a race-blind school) was 27.6% Asian-American, while Asian-Americans make up only 5.6% percent of the entire national population. To some, this statistic is not ideal because it does not reflect the racial balance of the population. This conflict raises the question: as appealing as a racially balanced student body may be to colleges, is it worth the possible accusation of discrimination?
Similar questions have been brought up in light of the lawsuit against Harvard, and the Obama-era affirmative action policies (that could potentially change during the Trump administration): should colleges be able to make decisions based upon an applicant’s race? If so what restrictions, if any, should be placed on the decisions colleges can make?
These are tough questions, and they don’t have immediate answers. However, some insight can be shed on the nature of these policies, and what they mean for the nation’s top colleges. Affirmative action is a crucial aspect of racial representation in America’s top colleges. When California banned affirmative action in 1998, the percentages of Hispanic and black freshmen dropped by 5 and 4, respectively. These statistics would most likely hold true today, as a New York Times study in 2017 found that the representation of black and Hispanic students at the nation’s top colleges have not increased in the past 35 years. Ultimately, banning affirmative action would drastically decrease black and Hispanic representation at selective colleges, and considering this level of representation has not changed in decades, that is not the direction the nation should be going in.
The question of whether colleges should be able to reject students based upon race is entirely different. There are many socioeconomic and historical justifications for affirmative action, but quotas and higher standards for Asian-American applicants do not have the same rationalization or (more importantly) legal status as affirmative action. Before delving into this situation, though, it’s important to acknowledge that any quota, or higher standard is claimed— not proven. Currently, Harvard claims that the number of qualified Asian-American applicants rejected can be traced back to lower personality scores. It is possible, however, that these claims are a weak justification for an attempt at a more racially balanced class, in which case the question may be asked: is it acceptable to limit the numbers of a certain race in order to create a more racially balanced student body?
The responses to this question, when posed to the Globe staff, varied much more than the generally positive opinions on affirmative action. On one hand, the rejection of an Asian-American student in favor of a less-qualified student of another race (that does not benefit from affirmative action) could be considered discrimination. The opposing stance justifies this action because it contributes to a more racially balanced student body. Although this may be appealing, there is really no way to justify this to the individual. This matter really boils down to a simple question: what’s more important, the desires of the institution, or the rights of the individual?
It’s quite hard, and maybe even impossible, to justify racial quotas or higher standards for applicants of a certain race. Affirmative action, however, is much more easily justifiable, in part because it gives certain minorities advantages rather than disadvantages. Discrimination has no place in the college process, and although a racially balanced campuses seems attractive, there’s only so much institutions can do to perpetuate that dream without infringing on the rights of individuals.