What Asian Americans Reveal About Affirmative Action

People assume eliminating race as a factor would benefit Asian Americans, but here's why they're wrong

  • Share
  • Read Later
Lara Jo Regan / Liaison / Getty Images

A scene from Sproul Plaza at the University of California, Berkeley in 2000, four years after California voters approved Proposition 209, a ballot initiative that banned affirmative action at all state institutions.

As the Supreme Court prepare to reopen the issue of affirmative action, we can expect another fierce debate about whether college admissions should be color blind. But that debate itself is blind.

Consider Asian Americans, who make up a large part of the student body at selective colleges and universities. Most people assume that the dismantling of affirmative action would benefit Asian Americans by opening up even more slots for Asian high-achievers. The notion that this is good for Asian Americans seems plausible on the surface, but on a deeper level, it’s quite misguided.

It is true that if admission were based solely on test scores, more students of Asian descent would be admitted. In one recently published study, Asian American students who enrolled in Duke averaged 1457 out of 1600 on the math and reading portions of the SAT, compared to 1416 for whites, 1347 for Hispanics and 1275 for blacks.

Opponents of affirmative action cite such statistics to tell a story in which deserving yellows lose slots to undeserving blacks and browns. (Tellingly, we don’t usually hear much about undeserving whites.) But the experience of Asian Americans doesn’t easily fit such a narrative. Instead, it reveals three more important realities that we need to face:

(MORE: Is the Supreme Court Going to Kill Affirmative Action?)

1. Merit Is Not A Number. We all want merit to mean something, and we all may be tempted to reduce that meaning to something measurable and concrete like an SAT score. The reality, though, is that who deserves entry into an institution depends on what the institution exists to do.

Imagine filling a college with the first 1,000 students to get perfect SATs. Whatever the racial composition of that class would be, the notion seems absurd because we know that college in America is supposed to be about creating citizens and leaders in a diverse nation. There are other factors to weigh than test-taking aptitude, some of them intangible.

To be sure, racism sometimes lurks in those same intangibles: consider the stereotype that diligent, detail-oriented Asian Americans make better followers than leaders. But what that calls for is not a misplaced faith that merit can be quantified and that the number should displace all else. It calls for a transparent description of the qualitative factors that shape selection. Among those factors, validly, is whether an applicant’s entry increases the diversity of the class.

(MOREHow Affirmative Action Backfires at Universities)

2. Diversity Is A Necessity Not A Nicety. When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor upheld the limited use of affirmative action in higher education in the 2003 Grutter case, she argued that diversity is a compelling national interest. Social scientist Scott Page has shown that diverse teams perform better than more talented but less diverse teams. As he says: “Diversity trumps ability.” That is the American advantage, in business, sports, and ideas. It is not just nice but necessary for our universities to diversify.That’s why it’s good that there are more Asian Americans in selective colleges than a generation ago – and fewer than scores alone would dictate.

Of course, diversity comes in many forms. The ethnic and socioeconomic diversity within Asian America is usually overlooked in the media. Great numbers of Asian Americans do not fit the model minority or “tiger family” stereotypes, living instead in multigenerational poverty far from the mainstream. Their situation argues for the consideration of class in affirmative action, so that all people who lack social capital can get a fairer shot at social mobility. It also reveals how the current debate is too narrowly focused on the elite.

(MORE: Eric Liu: How Jeremy Lin Makes Us All Americans)

3. We Can’t Afford Such a Narrow Conversation. In the end, arguing about affirmative action in selective colleges is like arguing about the size of a spigot while ignoring the pool and the pipeline that feed it. Slots at Duke and Princeton and Cal are finite. The bigger question is why there are so few perceived paths to opportunity and why so few people of any color are moving along these paths.

When Justice O’Connor reluctantly affirmed affirmative action in Grutter she challenged the country to make it unnecessary within a quarter century. We are nine years into her challenge – too early, perhaps, for the Roberts Court to discard her carefully constructed precedent; but getting late, certainly, if we are to deliver on the promise of race-neutral opportunity by 2028. People like Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree have taken up O’Connor’s call and have catalyzed projects to close racial opportunity gaps in public schools and the criminal justice system. What we need now are a million such O’Connor Projects, led by citizens of every stripe – and by our own government.

It’s time to shift the debate – to ask why opportunity has gotten more scarce in America, to frame our challenge as something bigger than an every-race-for-itself zero-sum fight. Asian Americans can help lead that shift now. And that would be a great American success story.

MORE: 10 Ideas That Are Changing Your Life

4 comments
JetSpygul
JetSpygul

If you eliminate race based affirmative action, you will basically have no effect on the discrimination against admitting Asians today. Because nobody seems to realize that the discrimination against Asians is based on White privilege. White people who control the application process will continue see Asians as stereotypical "docile, bookish, timid" types that have no place in an elite institution where the narrative is all about being a "well-rounded" person. The other problem with eliminating AA is just a numbers game. AA affects "underrepresented minorities" which by definition are only going to be 20% of your university. Let's say eliminating AA takes half, that's 10% more slots for whites and Asians. Now, going with the current trend, out of the 80% "non-disadvantaged groups" (which ignores disadvantaged Asians but that's another story) we put 60% whites in there, leaving 20% for Asians. Applying that logic to the "No AA" case, we go from 20% URM, 60% white, 20% Asian to...

67.5% White, 22.5% Asian, 10% URM. For the Asian Americans who are against affirmative action, is it really worth ruining the chances of HALF of America's underrepresented groups to put in a ~10% or less increase in Asians? An increase that will come with even MORE rich, white privileged people coming into our colleges. 

The math just does not work out.

thebruins
thebruins

John, blacks/hispanics don't deserve a leg up over asians either since admissions should be based on merit. besides, there is much diversity within the asian population as well, and many asians also come from disadvantaged backgrounds; their parents may not speak english well and have low-paying jobs, which means they're less likely to live in an affluent area. also, only 5% of the US population is asian, compared to about 15% for both blacks and hispanics, so if anything, asians are even less represented than those two groups. no one should deserve any special concessions because of an uncontrollable factor such as race.


JohnNg
JohnNg

You have some interesting points, but you miss one crucial one: Asians are disadvantaged in the admission process even against traditionally non-disadvantaged, and rather well-represented, racial/ethnic groups.  

African-Americans receive special concessions, that is true.  It is understandable, and I can probably accept the concept of giving historically disadvantaged racial groups extra points in the game.  Groups such as African Americans or Native Americans deserve some help.  So in these cases, all things being equal (extracurricular activities, interview scores, etc...) maybe it is justifiable that Blacks get an extra 100 points added automatically on the SAT (effectively giving Asians a 100 point penalty against Blacks).  However, analysis done at Princeton shows that Asians not only have to higher scores in comparison to Blacks, but also Whites.  There is evidence to show that Asians need to have higher scores in order to beat a White student in the admissions game (lets use 50 points as a nice round number).  What justification is there for there to be a penalty against Asians when compared to similarly qualified traditionally non-disadvantaged, and rather well-represented, racial/ethnic groups such as Caucasians?

In my opinion, there should only be TWO admission streams.  Regular (where you do not mention your race at all if you are from a non-disadvantaged group), and Special (where you would click off a box if you fall under a category that requires special attention).  In the regular category, Whites and Asians are treated the same.  A White student vs. an Asian student with exactly the same SAT scores, GPA, and cloned extracurriculars will have similar chances.  The White child should not have an advantage over Asians.  If a white child only needs a 1300, that is what will be required of the Asian child as well.  But reality is, Asians need 1350, whereas a white child only needs 1300 (using round fictional numbers here).  THIS, in my opinion, is the problem.  Why do Asians need higher scores against historically non-disadvantaged groups?  I can understand giving Blacks/Hispanics/Natives the legs up over Asians, but why do White kids get this leg up against Asians well?  It's almost like Asians are being punished for being successful on average (but even this is debatable... there is still a corporate glass ceiling Asians still fail to breach).