OPINION
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
(Illustration by Maggie McKinney
Modeling Discrimination in Minority Admissions Asian Americans being stereotyped as the “model minority” unfairly hurts their chances for admission into selective schools. BY MAGGIE MCKINNEY REPORTER
The Ivy League colleges have an average of 6.7% acceptance rate, according to the admission percentage of all eight universities. Schools such as Harvard, Yale and Dartmouth are hailed for their opportunity for intellectual greatness for anyone with enough promise. Unless they are Asian American. Known as the “model minority” in America, Asian Americans are applauded for seemingly achieving a higher degree of socioeconomic success than the population average. Asian Americans are seen as being productive workers with high paying jobs in tech or accounting (but never as the manager or leader). But this stereotype is not reflected in elite college admission rates. Asian Americans have been consistently admitted to the Ivy League schools at the same relatively low rates for decades. With the pressures that come with the “model minority” label and the increasing competition to get into these elite schools, Asian Americans have an incredibly unfair disadvantage when it comes to the admissions process. Harvard University has recently won a legal battle with Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit group composed of “20,000 students, parents, and others who believe that racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional,” according to the group’s website. SFFA alleged that Harvard’s “race-conscious” admissions process actually works to fulfill racial quotas for the student body, which is illegal. Harvard denied using racial quotas and argued that taking into account an applicant’s race is merely a part of their “holistic” approach
to the admissions process. The federal court ruled that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions process is fair and that it does not discriminate against Asian-Americans on a surface level. However, it can be argued that racial stereotyping and discrimination against the “model minority” is so deeply rooted in college admissions that it is no longer seen as discrimination. The “model minority” label, although seemingly positive, brings increasing hardships for Asian American applicants. The expectation for Asian Americans to be high achieving, well rounded, outstanding citizens with genius-level intellect proves to be a near-impossible standard for high schoolers to meet, let alone exceed. This stereotype has resulted in Asian Americans to have to play a game of catch up to applicants of other ethnicities in regards to standing out to the admissions committee. A study done by the National Study of College Experience found that students who self-identify as Asian overall need 140 more SAT points than white applicants, 320 more than Hispanics and 450 more than African Americans in order to be equitably considered in terms of academics. The same study also found that among applicants with the highest SAT ranges (14001600), an average of 77% of African Americans are admitted into selective colleges, 48% of Hispanics, 40% of whites but only 30% of Asian Americans. This expectation also disproportionately affects Asian-Americans who do have the resources to obtain these benchmark accomplishments, such as economically disadvantaged teens who cannot afford tutors, standardized test prep or private education. Even if these students do obtain high academic achievement, the admissions officers are still likely to take points off for Asian-Americans’ “personality”; the stereotypical personality being bland, academically focused, and rigid. In the “holistic review” method Harvard so eagerly boasts, applicants are not only rated by academic achievement and general merit, but also by personality traits. Harvard states that “integrity,
maturity, strength of character, and concern for others play a significant role in our evaluations,” according to their website. Asian-Americans consistently receive low marks on the personality categories, according to SFFA v. Harvard. The group alleges that if the discriminatory “personality” and race considerations were eliminated, Asian-Americans would be admitted at a much higher rate; that claim can be backed up by other colleges. The California Institute of Technology does not consider an applicant’s race or “personality” and bases admissions almost entirely on academic merit, and their student body was almost 40% Asian-American in 2016, which tops Harvard’s 25.3% Asian-American admittance for the class of 2023. Asian-Americans have been discriminated against over and over in American society throughout history, with Japanese-American internment camps during World War II all the way up to the 1960s, when Asian-Americans finally gained the right to vote. Attempting to make up for the series of injustices through labeling all Asian-Americans as a “model minority” is simply not beneficial to the advancement of social equity, and is a stereotype that ends up harming them as a whole. Admissions offices need to commit to being “race neutral” when it comes to applicants or applicants of color will never have the chance of a fair shot at acceptance. It should be illegal for students to be asked to indicate their race or ethnicity on the application, no matter what the college is. If the Ivy League schools are to continue to be the “pinnacle” of American education, then they must disregard race and emphasize achievement in their admissions process.
A protest in Boston’s Copley Square Oct. 14, 2018 to support the lawsuit from Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard (Photo by Wikimedia Commons)
12 LE JOURNAL
