In 2019, the Massachusetts district court ruled that Harvard did not discriminate against Asian Americans in the admissions process. The long-awaited decision to the Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA) lawsuit sparked a furious debate in the news media over the fate of affirmative action in higher education. When I first heard about everything, I was extremely confused. Wait, wasn’t this a case about racial discrimination against Asian Americans? Since when did it become a political battle over affirmative action programs, which didn’t even include Asian Americans?
After doing some research, I discovered that the Harvard lawsuit was only the tip of the iceberg. Similar claims of anti-Asian bias in competitive college admissions were made throughout the 1980s-1990s. Dana Takagi, Professor of Sociology at UC Santa Cruz, splits the college admissions debate into three phases: discrimination (1983-1986), diversity (1987-1988), and affirmative action (1988-1990).
During the 1) “discrimination” phase, Asian American activists and scholars accused prestigious universities of using quotas to limit the number of Asian American students admitted.
In the 2) “diversity” phase, admissions officers and school officials shifted the conversation to issues of diversity and representation in higher education.
Lastly, the 3) “affirmative action” phase is characterized by neoconservatives turning the debate into a battle over race-conscious affirmative action policies. The SFFA v. Harvard lawsuit is a continuation of this last phase.
Historical Context
Starting in the 1980s, Asian American professors and student organizations noticed that the percentage of admitted Asian American students at selective universities had suddenly decreased and gone stagnant. They launched detailed investigations into admissions processes at UC Berkeley, UCLA, Yale, Cornell, Brown, Harvard, and several other elite institutions. They were alarmed to find that several of these schools had excluded Asian American applicants from affirmative action programs or put “ceilings'' in place to limit the number of admitted Asian students. The Asian American Task Force on University Admissions (ATFUA), headed by Professor Ling-Chi Wang, found that UC Berkeley had secretly implemented a minimum SAT verbal score of 400 in 1984. At that time, the average Asian American SAT verbal score was 28 points below the 426, the national average. Berkeley also made a policy change to direct Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) students “who were not Black, Hispanic, or Native American”—meaning Asian—to UC Santa Cruz.
The Asian American Student Association (AASA) at Brown University found that similar measures had been implemented to cap the percentage of admitted Asian students. In the fall of 1981, admissions officers made no effort to recruit Asian American students in California, New York, and Pennsylvania, especially in inner-city ethnic enclaves that were economically disadvantaged and “culturally isolated from the exclusive world of the Ivy League.” The AASA also found a decline or stagnancy in the percentage of admitted Black, (nonwhite) Hispanic, and Native American students in the same time period.
This data is significant because Asian Americans made up 54.2% of the total increase in applications to Brown during this period, while white students only made up 26.5%. The admission rate for Asian Americans decreased then went stagnant, while the admission rate for white students remained steady or increased.
“This campus will endeavor to curb the decline of Caucasian students…A rising concern will come from Asian students and Asians in general as the number and proportion of Asian students entering at the freshman level decline.”
— Rae Lee Siporin
Director of Undergraduate Admissions at UCLA
These developments were part of a larger historical movement towards “colorblindness.” In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in University of California v. Bakke that racial quotas violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, although, using race as a “factor” in admissions was constitutional. University of California v. Bakke and subsequent SCOTUS cases sparked a fierce political debate on whether race-conscious remedies harmed white students, since “whiteness” should also be considered a “race.” However, the situation got blurry once “diversity” and “affirmative action” were applied to the Asian American admissions controversy.
Should Asian Americans Be “Racialized” or “Deracialized”?
“Affirmative action discriminated against Asian Americans by restricting the social awards open to competition on the basis of merit. We may want a modified meritocracy, but it should not be modified by racism and the resentment of excellence...At a time of high anxiety about declining educational standards and rising competition from abroad, and especially from the Pacific Rim, it is lunacy to punish Asian Americans—the nation’s model minority—for their passion to excel.”
— George F. Will, Conservative Washington Post Columnist
“A Quota: On Excellence? The Asian American Admissions Debate”
Liberals responded by defending race-conscious affirmative action, specifically for historically oppressed groups such as Black people, Hispanics, and Native Americans:
“Conservatives often offer the success of Asian Americans as evidence that the American system is so fair to all that blacks and other minorities jolly well better look to themselves, not to the government or ‘reverse discrimination,’ for solutions to their problems. But the Berkeley problem was not ‘reverse discrimination.’ It was plain, old-fashioned discrimination of a sort affirmative action programs were intended to remedy, not create. The big difference this time is that it penalizes a people who have a reputation for overachievement.”
— Clarence Page, Liberal Commentator
“A Quota: On Excellence? The Asian American Admissions Debate”
However, neither group seems to know where to position Asian Americans on the racial hierarchy. Conservatives, who were in favor of colorblind policies, pointed to the “success” of Asian Americans as evidence of their “deracialization.” Liberal news outlets were also reluctant to categorize Asian Americans as “white-adjacent” or “historically oppressed.” Shifting away from the topic of “discrimination,” university admissions officials made it clear that Asian Americans were “overrepresented” and didn’t contribute to “diversity” on campus. Some common explanations were that Asian applicants mainly chose STEM majors, had weak extracurriculars, and were overrepresented in higher education in general.
“Central to the position of Asian Americans in racial politics is the process of producing them as racialized subjects. In the first period of the controversy, Asian American activists effectively racialized complaints of discrimination by arguing that Asian American students were unfairly turned away from universities because they were Asian. In the second period of debate, many university officials sought to deracialize the controversy by arguing that Asian Americans were ‘good but not exceptional’ students.”
— Dana Takagi, Professor of Sociology at UCSC
“Asian Americans and Racial Politics: A Postmodern Paradox”
The question of whether Asian Americans should be considered “racialized” or “deracialized” when it comes to race-conscious remedies is a difficult one. However, I think it’s very important to note how Asian Americans themselves slipped into the background of the debate while politicians, the press, and university representatives argued over affirmative action. Even now, the paradoxical Asian American racial identity is being commodified and exploited by these two sides, while the activists at the origin of this debate lose their voices.
The Harvard Case
In 2014, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), led by conservative activist Edward Blum, filed a lawsuit against Harvard’s admissions policies, claiming that they discriminated against highly qualified Asian American applicants. SFFA’s goal is to abolish the use of race-conscious admissions policies throughout higher education. This development would likely tank the representation of Black and Hispanic students on campus. While the admit rate for Asian American students was projected to go up by only 3%, that number was 8% for whites. Furthermore, given that Black and Hispanic students continue to be extremely underrepresented at elite universities, the spots allegedly stolen from Asian Americans were likely given to white students.
The most infamous (and confusing) piece of evidence in the SFFA v. Harvard case was the “personal score.” While Asian Americans received better scores than white applicants on academic and extracurricular criteria, they were rated lower on “personal” and athletic criteria. Admissions officers described them as “quiet,” “hard worker,” “bright,” but “bland,” “flat,” or “not exciting.” Interestingly, admissions officers denied that the “Asian American identity” had any impact on personal ratings. Instead, Asian Americans might have been inaccurately evaluated in their teacher and counselor recommendations. Another justification was the high concentration of Asian American applicants interested in STEM majors, which was antithetical to Harvard’s mission of promoting “diversity.” In other words, they were disadvantaged by individual choices and personal characteristics, not by the Harvard admissions office.
Does Harvard discriminate against Asian Americans? It’s very difficult to say. The data presented in the case was highly flawed. Even if there was conclusive evidence that Harvard’s admissions officers were biased against “stereotypical” Asian American applicants, we’re not looking in the right place. The outcome of the Harvard lawsuit has been deeply traumatizing to many Asian American families who see a prestigious education as their only gateway to social mobility. The admissions debate has only exacerbated the pressures and anxieties already experienced by young Asian Americans. They confront harmful “model minority” and “perpetual foreigner” stereotypes so often that even the possibility of Harvard being biased against them may serve as a reaffirmation of those stereotypes.
However, I can say this with certainty: in our modern society, systemic racism masks itself as individual flaws. White supremacy is at the root of Asian Americans’ intense intergroup competition and “lack of desirable personal qualities.” Asian Americans don’t just happen to be “shy” or “all STEM nerds.” When an entire minority group is disadvantaged for some reason or another, it’s never a coincidence.
Some of you reading this might be juniors preparing to apply to college, or seniors who are already enrolled. Whether or not you’re accepted to your dream school, please remember that there are so many factors beyond your control. Systemic racism persists against Asian Americans—of all ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds—in both the college application process and beyond. While your individual efforts may be ineffective at “gaming” the system, we can collectively recognize how racism shapes our choices and opportunities in life. The first step towards dismantling racism is to bring it into the light.
To further decolonize our minds:
James T. Patterson | America at the End of the 20th Century, Part 1
The New Yorker | The Stories We Tell, and Don’t Tell, About Asian American Lives
NY Times | Where Does Affirmative Action Leave Asian Americans?
NY Times | Asian Americans Face Multiple Fronts in Battle Over Affirmative Action
If you liked what you read, be sure to subscribe and follow us on Twitter and Instagram @invisibleasians to stay updated on Politically Invisible Asians!