[ad_1]
The decision by a federal appeals court on Thursday to uphold Harvard University’s affirmative action program has reignited debate over the role of Asian Americans in racial justice issues in higher education.
Advocates and academics point out that while Students for Fair Admissions, the group that brought the lawsuit, claims Asian Americans are intentionally discriminated against in the Harvard admissions process, research shows that the overwhelming majority of Asian Americans support the program.
With the case now a little closer to the Supreme Court, where the SFFA will likely appeal the ruling, Asian American activists say much of their work will continue to involve dispelling myths about the impact of affirmative action and how the racial group views the problem.
“Race-sensitive admissions policies are essential to our global education system, our businesses and ultimately the world our children will inherit,” John C. Yang, president and executive director of the organization at civil rights nonprofit Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, told NBC Asian America. “There needs to be less pitting against each other and more understanding that race-sensitive admission policies are an advantage.”
According to the 2020 Asian American National Voters Survey, which surveyed nearly 1,570 voters, targeting the six largest national-origin groups, found that 70% of Asian Americans supported affirmative action, while 16 % opposed it. Chinese Americans, who were least likely to support the program, consistently favored it with a 56% majority.
Data from Harvard’s own admissions shows that race-sensitive admissions have benefited all communities, including Asian Americans, producing a more diverse student body, Yang said.
Harvard admissions statistics show that the share of its admitted class who are of Asian American descent has increased by 27% since 2010, according to the university’s response to the lawsuit. When looking at its class of 2023, Asian Americans are over 25%, while Latinx students are just over 12% and Black students are over 14%.
A story of being used as a wedge against other minority students
The SFFA, led by white conservative activist Edward Blum, continued to position Asian Americans against other minorities through the case, Yang said. After US circuit judge Sandra Lynch ruled that Harvard’s use of breed was not “inadmissible” and instead was “meaningful” in ensuring that diversity did not drop among its student body, Blum said in a statement he would call on the Supreme Court “to end these unfair and unconstitutional race-based admissions policies at Harvard and all colleges and universities.”
“Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have been used as a wedge and some groups have deliberately presented Asian Americans’ dissent to affirmative action as a way to mask their anti-Black and anti-Latino agendas Yang explained. “Such efforts hide the fact that most affirmative action opponents are really trying to increase the number of Caucasian students at the expense of black, Latino and Native American applicants.”
The race-based admissions discussion has persisted for years as a hotly debated issue in the Asian-American community, and for good reason. The desire to attend elite schools is rooted in the belief that education is the only way for Asian American children to compete with others, especially whites, for a promising job and a stable future, Pawan Dhingra, sociologist and professor of American studies at Amherst College, explained.
Asian Americans are predominantly an immigrant group, with 59% foreign-born, according to the Pew Research Center. This rises to 73 percent when looking at adults. With the rapid growth rate, Asian Americans are positioned as the country’s fastest growing immigrant group compared to all other major races. But Dhingra pointed out that unlike many others in the country, Asian Americans do not have social ties they can count on for jobs or internships.
The researcher also said many lack the “cultural means” that other Americans, especially those in the upper middle class, can take for granted and which admissions officers often refer to.
The elite school as a buffer against discrimination
“Because many immigrant parents have progressed through education rather than sports or the arts, they rely on academics as the primary means of helping their children outperform others and stand out from the crowd,” he said. explained Dhingra. “The logical result of such a commitment on the part of parents is the admission of their children to elite college.”
When it comes to Ivy League schools, parents are aware that the elite name could act as a buffer between their children and racial prejudice and discrimination in the workforce and beyond, has t -he declares. The push from parents to children to enter these schools comes from the desire to protect their children from possible future inequalities.
But Dhingra was quick to point out that this doesn’t mean these parents oppose affirmative action, especially given the results seen in previous surveys.
“Families who are pressured to get their children into Ivy League schools can and often support affirmative action,” he said. “And families may be against affirmative action and have less selective universities or no universities in mind. Opposing affirmative action is unrelated to the interests of the Ivy League. “
The researcher also believes that such a commitment to higher education does not mean that parents have a reason to be angry with affirmative action programs, because what limits the admissions of Asian Americans does is not a race-based selection process. Inherited admissions, athletic preferences, and other factors, however, do.
A working paper published last year in the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 43% of white students admitted to Harvard fell under the categories of recruited athletes, inherited students, and children of faculty and staff. This share also includes what is known as the “Dean’s List of Interests,” which includes applicants whose parents or relatives have made donations to the university.
The research noted that about 75 percent of white students admitted into these categories, identified as “ALDCs,” “would have been rejected had they been treated as white non-ALDCs.”
“Removing preferences for athletes and inheritances would dramatically alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of whites admitting decreasing and all other groups increasing or remaining unchanged,” the researchers wrote.
Why some Asian Americans hinder progress
Misconceptions persist among Asian Americans, however. Experts point out that a pervasive myth that feeds those who oppose affirmative action, as well as the group behind the lawsuit, is that there is a ceiling on acceptance of Asian Americans. So far, no evidence of such a cap has been found.
Janelle Wong, professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, College Park, noted that another dangerous misconception is that affirmative action equates to giving black and Latin American students undeserved opportunities.
“No, affirmative action is not a particular preference. It is a tool for overcoming the current systemic barriers for black and Latino students who are both qualified and deserving of higher education, ”she said.
Vincent Pan, co-executive director of the Chinese nonprofit Association for Positive Action, agreed, noting that while the support and leadership of the Asian American community on the issue of affirmative action is too often overlooked , there is still a segment of the population that is complicit in the right-wing agenda to overthrow racialized agendas.
“Their positioning undermines the work against anti-Asian racism which requires multiracial solidarity, making the needs of less visible AAPI groups more visible and dismantling anti-black stereotypes,” Pan said, referring to Asian Americans and to Pacific Islanders.
Additionally, said Wong, the removal of these programs has had negative effects on other communities of color, especially the Latinx and Black communities and their access to education and income. A study from the University of California at Berkeley found that after the 1998 institution of Proposition 209, which outlawed race-based affirmative action at California public universities, 10,000 first-year applicants from under-represented minorities had cascaded “into lower quality public and private universities”. This triggered a drop in the level of undergraduate and graduate graduation of these applicants. By the mid-2010s, the legislation had resulted in a “cumulative decline in the number of early-career URM Californians earning over $ 100,000 by at least 3%.”
Wong is not so sure the Supreme Court will take the Harvard case when it appeals, especially as lower courts have consistently ruled that the university does not discriminate against Asian Americans and have confirmed that its race-based admission process was constitutional. With Thursday’s decision behind them, activists have a positive view of the future of affirmative action. But, as Pan said, the job is not done.
“For AAPIs who support racial justice and civil rights, the bare minimum is supporting affirmative action,” he said. “This includes visible leadership in all communities, as well as within our own communities, and on more equitable college admissions, but not just on this issue.”
[ad_2]
Source link