The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina regarding allegations that the race-based practice actively discriminates against Asian-American applicants.KEVIN LAMARQUE/Reuters
Debra Soh is a sex neuroscientist, the author of The End of Gender and the host of The Dr. Debra Soh Podcast.
The decades-long battle over affirmative action in higher education in the United States may well be coming to an end. On Oct. 31, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina regarding allegations that the race-based practice actively discriminates against Asian-American applicants.
Harvard’s own data show that if academic success was the only metric guiding admissions, the percentage of admitted Asian-American students would more than double, from 19 per cent to 43 per cent.
These cases have the potential to overturn more than 40 years of affirmative-action precedents, for good reason. Although the practice is frequently couched in sunny euphemisms such as being a “race-conscious,” ”holistic admissions process” that is striving for “educational diversity,” in reality it is state-sanctioned racism.
It’s clear what the socially acceptable, politically correct position today is. A coalition of 20 states, 82 major corporations, as well as science and technology companies, colleges and organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union have either signed or filed amicus briefs supporting the practice.
Allowing skin colour to adjudicate who is deserving of a top-tier education and, by proxy, a bright future, reflects a deeper rot spreading throughout the education system, academia and wider society.
At its most appalling and absurd, some elite American high schools have gone as far as overlooking entry requirements altogether, choosing instead to invoke a lottery system. Doing so has increased Black and Hispanic enrolment while drastically cutting the enrolment of Asian-American students, many of whom belong to lower-income, less privileged families.
Within university programs, racial discrimination can take the form of excluding Asian and white men from STEM programs and hiring opportunities both within and outside of the ivory tower.
This desire to “rebalance” racial composition on campus has also managed to tamper with the application process by downgrading the importance of standardized test scores such as the SAT. Once required as part of the application process, leading colleges have since made the scores optional because of activists’ allegations they perpetuate ”white supremacy.”
In actuality, standardized testing offers an objective measure of a student’s potential to succeed in higher education. The SAT is a more accurate predictor of this than high-school grades, regardless of one’s race or income. But race activists are so committed to blaming systemic racism, they’ve lost sight of the forest for the trees.
Asian-Americans present a unique threat to the narrative of systemic racism, challenging the notion that non-white people are bound by history and aren’t capable of succeeding. Instead of attempting to understand how a minority group has managed to overcome racial discrimination, both historically and to this day, supporters of the diversity, equity and inclusion cult refer to Asians as “white,” “white-adjacent” and “model minorities” – sellouts deserving of scorn and retribution.
The moral superiority driving this trend betrays a deeper dehumanization. As revealed by court documents and more than 160,000 student records, Asian applicants to Harvard were systematically penalized with lower personality scores so that admissions would be biased against them. These personal ratings, often given without meeting the candidate, perpetuate hurtful racial stereotypes about Asian people – that they are less likeable and lacking in courage, kindness and respectability.
As well, anti-Asian attacks, including on campus, are not taken seriously. For example, at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, an Asian PhD student was left with a bleeding head and extensive bruising after being beaten in the street by four young men. (An Asian undergraduate student was also assaulted by the same group earlier that evening.) Both the university and police department issued statements saying they did not believe the attack was racially motivated. If the alleged attackers had been white, however, the assault would likely have been considered a hate crime.
The way to correct for previous injustice is not to enforce more injustice. If policy makers genuinely care about helping minority groups that are struggling – which is something I believe we should all be invested in – they should be willing to have difficult conversations about improving variables associated with school performance that will allow children to excel academically.
For instance, research has demonstrated the benefits of living in a stable, two-parent household, a subject that is potentially uncomfortable when we recognize race-associated group differences that emerge in census data. The positive effects of early father involvement on children’s academic performance, however, exceed the influence of race or class. These cognitive and emotional advantages are shaped early in life, long before applications to university enter the equation.
Of course, this should not be used to blame any groups for the differences we see. But addressing it would prove more effective than patching over the problem and tinkering with numbers behind the scenes.
If anything, refusing to address these issues honestly does a disservice to affected communities. But the benefits of blaming racism are tempting and twofold; they allow educators facing poor student performance to look and feel virtuous while absolving themselves of any responsibility.
What are the real-world implications of granting educational opportunities to students based on luck as opposed to merit? Affirmative-action programs have made the cutthroat, soul-crushing process of applying to prestigious universities unnecessarily demoralizing for Asian applicants before they’ve begun.
Also, getting into a top school is only half of the battle; it remains up to the student to make the most of the opportunity once they’re there. Students admitted based on factors besides academic aptitude may not be adequately prepared for the road ahead. Some will struggle to keep up with their cohort. They also are more likely to switch majors to a less demanding area of study, drop out (incurring tuition debt along the way), and experience difficulty passing state bar exams upon graduating.
Indeed, many beneficiaries of affirmative action go on to thrive at elite institutions, but we must also consider how it can potentially harm an underperforming student to put them in an environment where they won’t succeed. As well, Black and Hispanic students are more than capable of achieving these opportunities on their own ability.
For individuals in society who do hold prejudicial attitudes, artificially redistributing opportunities based on identity characteristics will not inspire them to rethink their views. If anything, it will lead to further radicalization and the belief that active discrimination on their part is justified for the purpose of self-preservation.
Another unwanted side effect is that minority students who are admitted will carry the assumption they were admitted not because of their abilities, but to fill a quota. For example, since I began speaking out against affirmative-action policies, I’ve been accused of being hypocritical, having presumably benefited from these very policies as an Asian woman. Therein lies progressive racism – the belief that a non-white person couldn’t possibly succeed without charity or deference from the system.
Higher education isn’t meant to be a gift. It’s a competition and was once preparation for the real world. Believing that opportunity should be equally distributed throughout society is frivolous and unrealistic because human beings do not have identical capabilities.
This issue represents a larger battle, extending beyond artificially manufacturing diversity in the classroom. It is an attack on standards, meritocracy and hard work. Universities can prioritize diversity or excellence – choosing the former has turned the entire admissions process into a joke.