 |
| A Harvard student celebrates her graduation from the Ivy League university. |
Asian Americans were on both sides of the controversy over Harvard's admissions procedures. Studies show that the vast majority of Asian Americans support the use of race in implementing affirmative action programs.
Today (Aug. 30), the Department of Justice sided with the plaintiffs challenging Harvard when it filed a Statement of Interest on the side of the plaintiff in Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President And Fellows Of Harvard College in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Also today, civil rights advocates Asian Americans Advancing Justice (Advancing Justice) alongside the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Boston-based Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice, and pro bono counsel Arnold & Porter, filed a second amicus curiae, “friend of the court,” brief on behalf of a diverse group of students, including Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders who support Harvard’s race-conscious holistic admissions policy. The students have special status in the case, which allows them to submit evidence and participate in oral argument.
RELATED: Asian Americans overwhelmingly support affirmative action
“The reality is that racism and segregation continue to unfairly limit educational opportunities in K-12 for students of color,” said Nicole Ochi, supervising attorney at Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles. “Race also shapes our life experience and is part of who we are and what we bring to the table. The consideration of race as one of many factors in holistic admissions recognizes those realities. That recognition should not be conflated with unlawful discrimination against Asian Americans.”
Ochi continues, “The evidence is clear that Harvard’s constitutional consideration of race in a holistic admissions process benefits underrepresented minority students, including Asian Americans. As a civil rights organization that fights every day to end racism against Asian Americans and other people of color, we know that ending the inclusionary consideration of race will exacerbate, rather than ameliorate any problems with racial bias that Asian Americans experience.”
At the heart of this case is a dispute about how to define and measure “merit.” But contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertions, flat numerical indicators like SAT scores and grade point averages are not colorblind measures of merit. They capture and magnify racial inequalities in K-12 education, bias in the tests and the test-taking experience, and cannot be fairly evaluated out of context.
Ochi continues, “The evidence is clear that Harvard’s constitutional consideration of race in a holistic admissions process benefits underrepresented minority students, including Asian Americans. As a civil rights organization that fights every day to end racism against Asian Americans and other people of color, we know that ending the inclusionary consideration of race will exacerbate, rather than ameliorate any problems with racial bias that Asian Americans experience.”
At the heart of this case is a dispute about how to define and measure “merit.” But contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertions, flat numerical indicators like SAT scores and grade point averages are not colorblind measures of merit. They capture and magnify racial inequalities in K-12 education, bias in the tests and the test-taking experience, and cannot be fairly evaluated out of context.
Research also confirms that the most promising students are not always the ones with the highest SAT scores or the best GPA and that non-academic factors that predict success like grit, resourcefulness, creativity, and critical thinking are independent of (or even correlate negatively with) these traditional academic measures.
“America’s version of meritocracy is not race-blind,” said Jang Lee, a senior at Harvard who is part of the student amici group with special status before the court. “Though the opposition says we should not be using race to decide our children’s destinies, race had already bound our destinies since birth.”
The plaintiff, Students For Fair Admissions, an organization created by conservative advocates to dismantle affirmative action, alleges that Harvard College intentionally discriminates against Asian American applicants when making admissions decisions. The plaintiff seeks relief from Harvard’s alleged discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a cornerstone civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance.
“America’s version of meritocracy is not race-blind,” said Jang Lee, a senior at Harvard who is part of the student amici group with special status before the court. “Though the opposition says we should not be using race to decide our children’s destinies, race had already bound our destinies since birth.”
The plaintiff, Students For Fair Admissions, an organization created by conservative advocates to dismantle affirmative action, alleges that Harvard College intentionally discriminates against Asian American applicants when making admissions decisions. The plaintiff seeks relief from Harvard’s alleged discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a cornerstone civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance.
The DOJ opened an investigation into Harvard’s admissions process in 2017 based upon a complaint filed by more than 60 Asian-American organizations.
As a condition of receiving millions of dollars in federal funding every year, Harvard specifically agrees to not discriminate on the basis of race in its admissions decisions, says a DOJ press release. The Justice Department believes the students and parents who brought this suit have presented evidence that Harvard’s use of race unlawfully discriminates against Asian Americans.
As a condition of receiving millions of dollars in federal funding every year, Harvard specifically agrees to not discriminate on the basis of race in its admissions decisions, says a DOJ press release. The Justice Department believes the students and parents who brought this suit have presented evidence that Harvard’s use of race unlawfully discriminates against Asian Americans.
“No American should be denied admission to school because of their race," said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. "As a recipient of taxpayer dollars, Harvard has a responsibility to conduct its admissions policy without racial discrimination by using meaningful admissions criteria that meet lawful requirements. The Department of Justice has the responsibility to protect the civil rights of the American people."
Sessions argued the school’s use of a “personal rating,” which includes highly subjective factors such as being a “good person” or “likeability,” may be biased against Asian-Americans. Sessions said the school admits that it scores Asian American applicants lower on personal rating than other students.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in previous anti-affirmative action cases that universities and colleges can use race as a factor, if it i not the only factor, in deciding a student's admissability.
However, the DOJ contends that Harvard—while using race to make admissions decisions for more than 45 years — has never seriously considered alternative, race-neutral ways to compile a diverse student body, which it is required to do under existing law.
If the court decides that Harvard has discriminated against Asian Americans, as the plaintiff contends, it would be blow against affirmative action policies used by colleges to have a racially diverse student body, a factor in creating a better learning environment, according to numerous studies.
“I have benefited from the diversity at Harvard that is made possible by its holistic, race-conscious admissions policy,” said Alex Zhang, a junior at Harvard who is also part of the student amici group.
“At Harvard, I have found a community of Asian Americans and other students of color that immeasurably contributed to my personal development. I think that Harvard still has a long way to go when it comes to race. Improving the racial climate for Asian Americans and supporting affirmative action programs are not mutually exclusive, they are complementary efforts to reduce racial bias,” said Zhang.
“Asian Americans will never have a fair shot at life in America until racism is eradicated from this country,” said Daniel Lu, a junior at Harvard who is also part of the student amici group. “We need affirmative action to help address this racism, but it is far from enough.”
______________________________________________________________________________
“I have benefited from the diversity at Harvard that is made possible by its holistic, race-conscious admissions policy,” said Alex Zhang, a junior at Harvard who is also part of the student amici group.
“At Harvard, I have found a community of Asian Americans and other students of color that immeasurably contributed to my personal development. I think that Harvard still has a long way to go when it comes to race. Improving the racial climate for Asian Americans and supporting affirmative action programs are not mutually exclusive, they are complementary efforts to reduce racial bias,” said Zhang.
“Asian Americans will never have a fair shot at life in America until racism is eradicated from this country,” said Daniel Lu, a junior at Harvard who is also part of the student amici group. “We need affirmative action to help address this racism, but it is far from enough.”
______________________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment