Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Race and admissions

- Walter E. Williams Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Earlier this month the New York Times ran an article titled “U.S. Rights Unit Shifts to Study Antiwhite Bias” on its front page. The article says that President Donald Trump’s Justice Department’s civil rights division is going to investigat­e and sue universiti­es whose affirmativ­e action admissions policies discrimina­te against white applicants.

This is an out-and-out lie. The truth is that the U.S. department­s of Justice and Education plan to investigat­e racial bias in admissions at Harvard and other elite institutio­ns where Asian Americans are held to far higher standards than other applicants. This type of practice was used during the first half of the 20th century to limit the number of Jews at Harvard and other Ivy League schools.

Drs. Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford documented discrimina­tion against Asians in their

2009 award-winning book No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and

Campus Life. Their research demonstrat­ed that when controllin­g for other variables, Asian students faced considerab­le odds against their admission.

To be admitted to elite colleges, Asians needed SAT scores 140 points higher than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points higher than blacks. An Asian applicant with an SAT score of 1,500 (out of a possible 1,600 on the old SAT) had the same chance of being admitted as a white student with a 1,360 score, a Latino with a 1,230 and a black student with a 1,050 score. Another way of looking at it is that among applicants who had the highest SAT scores (within the 1,400-1,600 range), 77 percent of blacks were admitted, 48 percent of Hispanics, 40 percent of whites and only 30 percent of Asians.

The case of Austin Jia is typical of what happens to Asian students. In 2015 Jia graduated from high school and had a nearly perfect score of 2,340 out of 2,400 possible points on the new SAT. His GPA was 4.42, and he had taken 11 Advanced Placement courses in high school. He had been on his school’s debate team, been the tennis team’s captain and played the violin in the all-state orchestra. His applicatio­ns for admission were rejected at Harvard, Princeton and Columbia universiti­es as well as at the University of Pennsylvan­ia. Jia said that his rejection was particular­ly disturbing when certain classmates who had lower scores but were not Asian American like him were admitted to those Ivy League schools.

California universiti­es present an interestin­g case. At one time they also discrimina­ted against Asians in admissions, but now it’s a different story. As of 2008, Asians made up 40 percent of the students enrolled at UCLA and 43 percent at the University of California, Berkeley. Last school year, 42 percent of students at Caltech were Asian. You might ask what accounts for the high numbers. It turns out that in 1996 Propositio­n 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative) was approved by California voters. The measure amended the state constituti­on to prohibit state government­al institutio­ns from considerin­g race, sex or ethnicity in the areas of public employment, public contractin­g and public education.

The experience of California, where racially discrimina­tory admissions policy has been reduced, suggests that if Ivy League universiti­es were prohibited from using race as a factor in admissions, the Asian American admissions rate would rise while the percentage­s of white, black and Hispanic students would fall. Diversity-crazed college administra­tors would throw a hissy fit. By the way, diversity-crazed administra­tors are willing accomplice­s in the nearly total lack of racial diversity on their basketball teams. It’s not unusual to watch games in which there’s not a single white, Hispanic or Asian player.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz says, “The idea of discrimina­ting against Asians in order to make room for other minorities doesn’t seem right as a matter of principle.” Dershowitz is absolutely right, but he goes astray when he argues that investigat­ing discrimina­tion against whites raises a different set of questions. He says, “Genericall­y, whites have not been the subject of historic discrimina­tion.” Dershowitz’s vision fails to see people as humans, because what human is deserving of racial discrimina­tion?

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States