I was chatting with a friend who is a Harvard graduate and a tenured professor at a big American research university. He asked for my opinion of the Harvard admissions race discrimination trial. I said that “As long as they are availing themselves of the river of Federal cash subsidies from the Department of Education, I think they have to comply with the Fourteenth Amendment. If they want to throw a race-based party then they need to do it without collecting tuition from students who are getting Federal student loans and grants.”
His response was to ask whether administrators shouldn’t fight against the nearly-all-Asian university that a purely merit-based admissions policy might produce. I said “Taking the long view, Chinese civilization is probably the world’s most successful and the Chinese intellectual tradition the strongest. Chinese universities have been more or less all-Asian. So if Harvard’s mission is academic excellence, what’s wrong with mostly Asian students?”
His personal view was that administrators should engage in racial discrimination, but that they should do so “gently.” He described a “non-gentle” year in his own (rather technical) department in which three sought-after non-white non-Asian women were accepted to graduate school. A dean had come down on the unlucky faculty and taken them to task for their non-diverse cluster of nerds. Despite special treatment, including an expensive investment in tutoring, two out of the three favored minorities failed out within two years. The experience of watching these students struggle and fail did not sour my friend on the idea of race-based discrimination, apparently contrary to the Constitution. Instead, he wanted the dials turned down slightly so that people admitted on the basis of their race or sex were less likely to fail.
I’m kind of surprised that few Americans seem to take the Fourteenth Amendment seriously. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, faced no media criticism for talking about how proud he was that all of his law clerks were female. Why did people accept the idea of a federal official, part of whose job was enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, being happy that all of his employees were of one race or sex?
- “What Is Harvard Trying to Hide?” (Politico): Harvard’s documents also showed that while applications from “Chicano,” “Puerto Rican,” “Native American” and “Black” applicants were directed to readers from those groups, the other entry on that list was framed differently: “Blue Collar Asian. Harvard officials said the sole Asian-American admissions officer at the time, Susie Chao, sought to read all the applications from Asian-Americans whose parents had a blue-collar background and many of those from wealthier families. Applicants from other ethnic minorities generally got a minority reader regardless of the family’s background, the records showed.
There was an interesting blog article about the Harvard case that looks at the Harvard perspective, not justifying, but explaining.
I pointed out the impotence in the justice department “endorsing” the lawsuit, when the executive branch has the power to turn off the money spigot immediately, until Harvard stops discriminating, and let Harvard sue if they dare.
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/10/11/making-what-harvard-is-about-transparent/
Viking: That’s an excellent point. The Feds could just cut off the river of cash to any institution that SEEMS to be violating the 14th Amendment. Harvard could keep going for quite some time on its $40 billion cash hoard and everyone would be happy (except for the Asians who keep getting rejected from what they believe should be a race-neutral admissions system).
But there remains a question about how to decide whether an institution actually IS violating the 14th Amendment. The article you cite says that Harvard simply lies about how it operates. If Harvard is going to lie and hide documents, how will the Feds know whether cutting it off is justified? Give financial incentives to insiders who can be whistleblowers?
I love when liberals are racist — point it out to them and see the results. Are they telling me ‘Asians’ the master race, with some greater civilisation than most? I know quite a few high achieving Asians, and they all work, and worked, pretty hard to achieve. They had families which pushed them to work hard. While I do agree that families pushing kids, and kids feeling they have to match the push, has cultural connotations, it is not the kind of stuff that requires a specific genetic makeup to achieve.
Dialling down the heat according to ethnicity or sex is discriminatory and condescending.
That’s an interesting point, Federico. It sheds some light on this argument by Philip:
“Taking the long view, Chinese civilization is probably the world’s most successful and the Chinese intellectual tradition the strongest. Chinese universities have been more or less all-Asian. So if Harvard’s mission is academic excellence, what’s wrong with mostly Asian students?”
There are international rankings of universities. They’re generally dominated by Western countries. Vast numbers of young Chinese attend universities in English-speaking Western countries, while very few Westerners have any interest in Chinese universities. The long view of Chinese civilization must refer to the distant past, not the current present in which untold millions of Chinese have shortened life expectancies due the polluted cities that they live in.
Whatever statistical standards you use, it seems a pretty clear case, but what makes the outcome unpredictable is the Supreme Court judges that will be ruling on this are themselves mostly the products of Harvard and Yale. Both universities invented the techniques originally used to exclude Jews, and since repurposed to keep Asians from taking spots from the likes of George W. Bush of Brett Kavanaugh.
What’s going on at MIT? How are they dealing with all this?
superMike: MIT is a follower, generally. They wait for Harvard to innovate and then try to craft a response. For example, MIT wasn’t motivated to cut rates for middle-class and upper-middle-class families until Harvard slashed its rates for the handful of non-rich folks who were admitted.
“Taking the long view, Chinese civilization is probably the world’s most successful and the Chinese intellectual tradition the strongest. Chinese universities have been more or less all-Asian. So if Harvard’s mission is academic excellence, what’s wrong with mostly Asian students?”
Impeccable reasoning. Contra Vince, I’ve heard that Chinese students now regard elite U.S. universities as less competitive than top Chinese schools. But for good reasons (haven’t studied Chinese, relatively less opportunity for them in China, disadvantaged in admissions process), top U.S. students won’t even try to compete for spots at top Chinese universities.
Interesting observation. Stuy HS in NYC has gone this route and is now 76% Asian, mostly Chinese but also south Asians and Koreans. It is a great school, certainly as far as NYC public high schools go, with motivated kids and motivated teachers and four years of a foreign language, physics, calculus and computer science (& mechanical drafting!) necessary for a Stuy diploma. The racists in the city government however are determined to put an end to this meritocracy for the poor by watering down admissions standards so politically favored minorities take the place of some of these typically poor though politically weak Asian (something like 60% of the student body is eligible for free lunch). We will see if the Gov Andy Cuomo vetoes the proposed changes otherwise say goodbye to Stuy — like City College, the Harvard for the Jews three generations ago, now destroyed.
Vince: I am aware that Americans enjoy believing that life in present-day China is intolerable, but by “long view” I was looking at the overall period starting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taixue (30,000 students nearly 2,000 years ago) through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guozijian_(Beijing) (founded 1306) and into the present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_University and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsinghua_University and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Taiwan_University . That the Industrial Revolution happened first in the West is something to be proud of, but it doesn’t mean that everything we’ve been doing for 2000+ years is superior to what China has been doing.
It would be nice if courts interpreted the 14th more narrowly (i.e. giving citizenship to former slaves), instead of being a catch-all to nullify laws that people don’t like. Sadly that horse has left the stable.
The 14th is also the reason why courts have said bastard children are entitled to the same child support as children of divorcees.
Re Phil and “Vince” — Also most westerners aren’t smart enough to learn Mandarin sufficient that they could attend Tsinghua University — but the Chinese are smart enough to learn English so they can attend Harvard or MIT or whatever.
Jack: A friend with a physics Ph.D. says that learning Chinese at Santa Clara Community College was much harder than anything he had to do in physics.
I am aware that Americans enjoy believing that life in present-day China is intolerable, but by “long view” I was looking at the overall period starting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taixue (30,000 students nearly 2,000 years ago) through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guozijian_(Beijing) (founded 1306) and into the present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_University and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsinghua_University and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Taiwan_University. That the Industrial Revolution happened first in the West is something to be proud of, but it doesn’t mean that everything we’ve been doing for 2000+ years is superior to what China has been doing.
I don’t derive any satisfaction from the misery of the Chinese. You references to things that happened centuries ago confirmed my assertions
about Chinese civilization. Though I do agree with your last point. The world’s most populous nation will certainly achieve things that others do not. Chinese food, for example, is very popular in many countries.
Tutoring … For grad students? Isn’t that a little too late in the pipeline? Upon graduation would these people need … tutors?… looking after them at their workplaces on a daily basis? Or was the plan to hire them into sinecures at universities, serving on diversity committees while the students are taught by white male adjuncts living out of their car trunks? Who would be doing the research? Or would all the research be about intersectionality in decolononialized STEM departments?
@Vince — how many English only courses one can take at an elite Chinese University? I bet that the number of Chinese/Asian people speaking English >>> anybody else speaking Chines/Asian language. There is a reason why English speaking universities attract more foreign students than universities where the working language is not English. This has nothing to do with quality, it has to do with spare time learning foreign languages (and their general usefulness). University rankings, incidentally, are heavily biased by research outputs, which do not necessarily reflect teaching effectiveness.
As I feel my first comment was not taken in its spirit, let me say that basing admission on anything but merit will not see universities take over by ‘Asians’. This is a racist idea (and an odd one to boot), one that sees ‘Asians’ as imbued with some magical nerd power. The simpler fact that these people work hard for what they achieve just does not seem to stick.
I am happy to say that, for the most elite places, competition could be so high that things other than simple hard work (such as parents rich enough to afford extra or better tuition for their kids) will play a role, together with plain old luck. Yet, as long as admission is only based on merit (and not on fancy extracurricular activities), kids still need to work to get something out of the extra benefits provided by rich parents.
Finally, I am happy to accept that in a number of cases ‘merit’ is not actually measured as academic proficiency, but as a number of other metrics that are more susceptible to privilege, connections and other biases. The unpalatable answer would then be to have serious and rigorous entrance exams, and just use those as a way of adjudicating merit. Nobody clearly wants to go that way.
I read somewhere that Ivy League (and perhaps all) colleges are seeking students who in the short and long run will contribute to the prestige, power, and wealth to the institution. This seems perfectly reasonable to me and perhaps is like a nonprofit “fiduciary responsibility” to (someone?). You might then conclude that the admissions team has a right and a duty to privately decide how this is best accomplished.
Perpetual: That’s an interesting perspective. If the people who are most likely to succeed in American society going forward are members of particular racial/victim groups (because of affirmative action in hiring or racial/victim preferences among woke voters) then universities should be free to pick students who will graduate into successful lifetime victimhood.
On the other hand, we are still faced with the issue that the universities are federally funded and there is that 14th Amendment…
Wouldn’t the universities’ position then be like the caricature of a prejudiced 1950s business: “We would love to hire you, but our customers only want to see a white male”?
Perpetual Student:
“You might then conclude that the admissions team has a right and a duty to privately decide how this is best accomplished.”
I agree. They are private universities and should be allowed to do what they want. The issue is they should be HONEST about this, and accept the consequences. You cannot blame Harvard (the law school) for taking someone like Obama who went onto become President over an asian who may have gone onto to become just yet another faceless middle class professional. Clearly it seems their decisions have been vindicated in the long-term. But their admission procedures need to be honest and transparent:
“Yes we do discriminate against Asians and prefer blacks because the former are simply “grinds” and not “vibrant” like the other group” – or whatever the real reasoning is.
It is the sheer hypocrisy of claiming they do not engage in racial discrimination etc., that most people object to.
Truthseeker: Harvard is not a “private” university when it comes to funding. Nearly all U.S. colleges and universities are soaking up a shower of federal cash from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education ($71.5 billion/year budget; see https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/House-Approves-FY-2019-Spending-Measure-That-Increases-Funding-for-Student-Aid-and-Research.aspx ).
This is why U.S. colleges and universities had to set up sexual assault tribunals after receiving a “Dear Colleague” letter from someone in the Obama Administration (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_assault_due_process and “obligation under Title IX”). The schools couldn’t say “We’re private and therefore we don’t have to do what a government official demands.”
Phil: Affirmative action is currently legal. Thus, if Harvard wanted to discriminate in favour of blacks v asians (and admitted doing so), how would the 14th amendment be an issue?
Phil: Hence, I said “and accept the consequences” i.e. they give up Government cash and just rely on their $40 billion. I am guessing the federal funding they receive pales into insignificance compared to their $40 billion?
Truthseeker: For whatever reason, courts have held that favoring dark-skinned Americans over light-skinned Americans is legal despite the apparently unambiguous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
However, I am not sure that applies to the current situation in which light-skinned Americans are being favored over harder-working Asian-Americans. Have white Americans suffered “historical discrimation” that entitles them to college admissions and jobs ahead of Asians?
Phil: But couldn’t Harvard just argue that we are keeping the asians out in order to keep our current black+ hispanic numbers at around 30%? Only Harvard knows *who* they would displace if all the qualified Asians were admitted.
Truthseeker: I guess we will find out by the end of this trial!
@philg: “That’s an interesting perspective. If the people who are most likely to succeed in American society going forward are members of particular racial/victim groups (because of affirmative action in hiring or racial/victim preferences among woke voters) then universities should be free to pick students who will graduate into successful lifetime victimhood.”
I am sure this was a tongue in cheek comment,however there is no coincidence that the black population of the ivies match the black fraction of the overall US population, because that is the minimum number that will keep blackmailers like Al Sharpton off their back.
The only victims Harvard would like are those that get billion dollar federal contracts due to their victimhood.
“Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, faced no media criticism for talking about how proud he was that all of his law clerks were female.”
Perhaps because a law clerk is really just a secretary. Did he say anything about their food preparation, footwear or reproductive status?
Alan: A law clerk is just a secretary? How many secretaries to CEOs become CEOs themselves?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
says “eight Supreme Court law clerks have gone on to become Supreme Court Justices themselves” and “Many of the more than 2,250 Supreme Court law clerks listed below have gone on to become federal appellate or district judges, members of Congress, or Cabinet Secretaries in the Executive Branch.”
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/06/aca-supreme-court-decision-how-do-the-justices-actually-write-their-opinions.html
says “While justices are responsible for the substance of their opinions in each case, their clerks usually do the majority of the writing.” and “The judge will then discuss with the clerk what the opinion should say and may provide a detailed outline or just a few rough notes.”
“about 30 percent of the opinions issued by the Supreme Court are almost entirely the work of law clerks”
So the laws under which you live were either entirely or primarily written by the folks whom you consider to be mere secretaries!
@PhilG:
“Taking the long view, Chinese civilization is probably the world’s most successful and the Chinese intellectual tradition the strongest.”
Is there a statistic out there that shows the % of Asian fall into top % of universities compared to % of Eurasian or American or other groups when population is taken into account?
That is, if China’s population is 100 people and only 5 are Harvard qualified, but US’s population is 10 and only 1 is Harvard qualified, does that mean Chines are “smarter” and more successful?
The other thing to take into account too is emerging society. China did not produce “smart” students as little as 50 years ago, but are now.
George:
I live in NYC, so here goes…
The first generation Chinese or Korean immigrants are not good at English, so they cannot write petitions on behalf of their kids: they just suffer in silence, and sometimes they are even ready to die.
You will see what I see when you meet an Asian mom or a dad who has literally sacrificed their whole life for a decent education for their kids (and I know plenty tear-jerking stories of Asian parents who have worked for $7/hr + tips for their whole lives and refused even the basic healthcare because they want to save $20 for their children’s education).
Don’t go there, please: don’t ever cross the weakest. Asians are ignored as a minority because they play by the rules and never protest.
About 3 months ago I asked a Korean student who was working for me why he thought we generally allow Asians to be discriminated against in higher education selection. He said it’s because Asians are passive and won’t complain about it. (This particular Asian had perfect math SAT scores).
Did you understand their pain? or the quiet desperation of their parents?
Or did you just want to say something?
For those who thinks that East Asians are just genetically better at math, FUCK YOU. I am not an Asian: I just happen to live there.
Asians’ 1580+ SAT is built on sweat and blood.
Back in the 1920’s it was commonly thought that Jews were genetically favored to be basketball players.
philg
https://www.businessinsider.com/carly-fiorina-started-out-as-a-secretary-2015-5
most military chief of staffs become generals/admirals, but they were still secretaries.
“may provide .. just a few rough notes” – so pretty much every document in america is written by secretaries using that model, not just supreme court opinions.
“mere” – was totally your fabrication, not my word or opinion.