#DefendDiversity

Michael Wang was the perfect applicant. After conquering thirteen AP classes, he had a stellar 4.67 GPA and graduated second in his class of 1,002 students. His ACT score was a flawless 36. He attended and placed in various national competitions in math, debate, and music. He even sang at Barack Obama’s inauguration. Michael was the sort of guy who, had he posted his stats on College Confidential, would probably give other college applicants nervous breakdowns during application season. Michael Wang was the perfect applicant, and yet he was rejected from six of the seven Ivy League colleges he applied to while he witnessed fellow classmates less qualified than he receive congratulatory letters. So, he asked a question to all the Ivy League schools that rejected him: “Was it based on race?”[su_pullquote align=”right”]So, he asked a question to all the Ivy League schools that rejected him: “Was it based on race?”[/su_pullquote]

The ripple effect from Michael’s simple but powerful question along with numerous complaints from disgruntled Asian American college applicants has culminated into the critical Harvard affirmative action lawsuit, a 2014 suit filed against Harvard by an organization called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). Led by conservative activist Edward Blum, SFFA is a nonprofit anti-affirmative action advocacy group consisting of more than 20,000 students, parents, and others who believe that “racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.” The lawsuit has recently garnered much national attention as it successfully made its way to a Boston courthouse on October 15, 2018. Now deemed the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard trial, the case, at face value, is black and white: Harvard is racially discriminatory by choosing less qualified applicants of other races over qualified Asian American applicants. The implications of SFFA v. Harvard, conversely, are anything but black and white. This trial will very likely determine the fate of affirmative action in the United States. It has already divided the Asian American community, perpetuated stereotypes and racist undertones, and, appallingly, pitted minority groups against each other in a toxic competition under the guise of seeking justice within the domain of higher education. Is it really for the sake of Asian Americans?

Harvard has unequivocally denied SFFA’s allegations, but SFFA has hard evidence to show that there is indeed questionable activity behind the scenes. An analysis of more than 160,000 student records released for investigative purposes shows that the reason for Harvard’s lower acceptance rate for Asian Americans is because of the “Asian personality penalty.” Harvard almost always automatically assigns Asian Americans a lower “personal rating,” a vital factor during the admissions process that assesses character traits such as kindness, likability, and humor. While this blatant discrimination is inexcusable, it doesn’t necessarily involve affirmative action.

[su_pullquote]The unpleasant reality of this situation is that there isn’t exactly a right or wrong answer.[/su_pullquote]This, however, is where things become interesting. In order to avoid admitting to discriminatory antics, Harvard chose to frame the lawsuit under the context of affirmative action. Simultaneously, Blum is using Harvard’s anti-Asian discrimination to attack affirmative action. There’s no doubt that Asian Americans are caught right in the middle of this controversial cross-fire. Do they support other minority groups and discredit the SFFA plaintiffs by accepting the inaccurate belief that Asians are “overrepresented” in higher education? Or, to put it bluntly, do they blindly follow Blum as he uses them for his ulterior agenda of achieving the goal (hint: it mainly benefits white applicants) of abolishing affirmative action? After all, this is the man who shamelessly said he “needed Asian plaintiffs” after his previous attempt to end affirmative action failed because he used a white student.

[su_pullquote align=”right”]It encourages empathy, compassion, and diversity to build stronger generations to come.[/su_pullquote]The unpleasant reality of this situation is that there isn’t exactly a right or wrong answer. On one hand, affirmative action is necessary to ensure that there are equal opportunities in higher education and to give minorities a chance to break down socioeconomic barriers. It encourages empathy, compassion, and diversity to build stronger generations to come. On the other hand, the SFFA plaintiffs have every right to be angry and should speak up to assert their civil rights, something that Asian Americans tend to have trouble doing. Harvard’s racial bias that is dependent on the notion of “overrepresentation” is a very real issue. It is detrimental to minorities because it focuses on creating unwanted antagonism within ethnic groups while deterring attention from the many white applicants who ultimately have the upper hand. Instead of trying to permanently eliminate affirmative action as Blum wants, there are actually practical ways to deal with Harvard’s discrimination such as making the admission process more transparent or reducing the favoritism shown to athletes and legacy students. The verdict for this trial will be released soon, and no matter what happens, it is clear that SFFA v. Harvard will set racial and political precedents that will change higher education for better or for worse.

Caron Song ‘19 studies in the School of Engineering & Applied Science. She can be reached at songcaronwustl.edu.