An alliance of Asian American groups filed a federal complaint Friday against Harvard University, claiming that the school and other Ivy League institutions are using racial quotas to admit students other than high-scoring Asians.
In some higher-education situations, Asian Americans are not included in the category of underrepresented (Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans) groups including faculty and staff and there is considerable
de facto discrimination that is simply never measured, so a federal complaint seems with all due respect a continuing aspect of the need to try to make access to elite education more equitable for all POC in some ways despite the contentious terrain of necessary US
Affirmative Action.
This is a problematic discourse because "balancing" of undergraduate entry cohorts, much less graduate school admissions is a difficult concept and even more difficult at places that have complex criteria including legacy, and complex recruitment element combinations (SAT, ACT, and AP test scores, GPA, extra-curricular aspects). Selectivity is important even with all the usual ruling class advantages and "high-scoring" aptitude measured by quantitative testing can never exclude other factors.
The use of "quota" is problematic because of what counts as proportional Asian-American demographic representation in the US (a complex construction itself with South Asians, East Asians, Southeast Asians etc.) as well as correlating income disparities among other factors: private versus public secondary schools, school districts, and regional geographic "balance" differences.
This use of what European/"Caucasian"(sic) groups often use as an anti-Affirmative Action meme: "quotas", does seem like a logical flaw in the complaint's premise that constraints if proven being applied to an overrepresented group cannot be seen as discriminatory when proportions are exceeded in such high numbers relative to the selectivity of the institution. While not frivolous, certainly the more important issue for POC should be whether underrepresentation of actual underrepresented populations should take priority with merit trumping all, regardless.
It is made more complicated in the subsequent post-acceptance negotiations over financial aid/tuition since some institutions such as Harvard have the openly admitted ability to ostensibly waive tuition for criteria unrelated to income or need, noting that a homeless student was admitted recently.
While important to represent the historical importance of cultural issues in this instance, this complaint, as interest group activism does represent for example the perennial issues at the University of California of discrimination for certain groups while falling short for qualified others going back now decades. UC uses a reasonable formula for statewide selective admission (12.5% of public secondary school graduates) that gets routinely exceeded by certain groups leading to reactionary media by a variety of folks such as this viral piece from 2011 and its often parodic critiques, that of course only reveals something quite pernicious.
More than 60 Chinese, Indian, Korean and Pakistani groups came together for the complaint, which was filed with the civil rights offices at the Justice and Education departments. The groups are calling for an investigation and say these schools need to stop using racial quotas or racial balancing in admission.
"We are seeking equal treatment regardless of race," said Chunyan Li, a professor and civil rights activist, who said they'd rather universities use income rather than race in affirmative action policies.
Harvard says its admissions approach has been found to be “fully compliant federal law.” Officials also say the number of Asian students admitted increased from 17.6 percent to 21 percent in the last decade.
"We will vigorously defend the right of Harvard, and other universities, to continue to seek the educational benefits that come from a class that is diverse on multiple dimensions," said Robert Iuliano, Harvard's general counsel.
Iuliano pointed to the Super Court’s landmark 1978 decision in Regents of University of California vs. Bakke, which upheld affirmative action and specifically cited Harvard’s admissions plan as a “legally sound approach” to admissions.
The federal suits say that Harvard and UNC rely on race-based affirmative action policies that impact admissions of high-achieving white and Asian American students. The Harvard lawsuit also alleges that the institution specifically curbs the number of Asian Americans it admits each year.
Other Asian American groups and officials also released statements supporting affirmative action, including two members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "Neither of us believes that any racial or ethnic group should be subjected to quotas," Commissioners Michael Yaki and Karen Narasaki said. "Nor do we believe that test scores alone entitle anyone to admission at Harvard. Students are more than their test scores and grades."
Scripps Spelling Bee
Thirteen of the last seventeen winners (from 1999 to 2014), including all champions for the most recent seven years (including 2014's pair of co-champions, for a total of eight champions during this interval), have been Indian Americans, reflecting the recent dominance of students of this community in this competition. Indian Americans make up less than one percent of the U.S. population.