In 2014, Students For Fair Admission (SFFA) filed a complaint against Harvard University regarding its Affirmative Action admission practice in federal district court. According to the SFFA website, this nonprofit membership group believes “racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.” Of its 20,000+ organized members are students accusing the university for discriminating Asian-Americans in the admission process and giving preference to other racial minorities through affirmative action. Around the 1960s, affirmative action was designed to allow higher education institutions to “actively engage in efforts to improve opportunities for historically excluded groups in American society” (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). A national study conducted by Thomas Espenshade and Alexandra Radford suggests “affirmative action is a misguided progressive policy to help black and hispanic people while unfairly penalizing Asian and white people” (Vox, 2018). Stacy Lee (1996) (as cited in Rim, 2007) further adds that this “strongly implies that Asian-Americans have been able to succeed because they have the ‘right’ cultural components for success: traditional family structures that value hard work and education” (p. 40). So if Asian-American students tend to perform academically well compared to other minority groups, affirmative action may weigh its racial bonuses and penalties similar to admission policies implemented for their white counterparts. In response to the recent University of Harvard case, counter organized groups argue this debate revives an “unrelenting agenda to dismantle efforts in creating a racially diverse and inclusive body” (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2018), which may see its way back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Integrative Review
Asian-American students have long been seen as academic threats on college campuses, at least among their white counterparts and other minority groups. They are stereotyped as model minorities “who are well accepted and well integrated into the dominant society” (Hartlep & Lowinger, 2014) with a studious attitude. Being one of the fastest growing racial/ethnic groups in America, the number of Asian-Americans will continue to increase overtime. With the rise of Asian-American student enrollment at institutions where affirmative action is largely a focus, it begs the question if this practice disadvantages this particular minority group.
Social influences play a significant role on the college choice process for Asian-Americans. In a study produced by Surla and Poon (2015), findings revealed that family and friends shape Asian-Americans’ college vision in the predisposition phase. The seven Asian-Americans who participated in the study said their “parents encouraged them to think of college as a pathway to attain financial mobility,” and for some, it was also an opportunity for social mobility. Students shared that their families immigrated to America without much money and worked hard for their living, thus encouraging their children to strive for ‘a better life’ and exceed what they had by pursuing further education. While attending college is not usually an individual choice for Asian-Americans, the purpose of pursuing and completing college degree is for the well-being of the family as a whole.
Not all Asian-Americans are the same in nature and their path for continued education is relatively different among various ethnicities, despite holding similar familial values that play a significant role in their decision-making. Previous research from Teranishi et al (2004) (as cited in Surla and Poon, 2015) indicates that “Filipino and Southeast Asian-American students tend to apply to a lower number of colleges and are more likely to enroll in less selective institutions closer to home than their South and East Asian-American peers” (p. 16). Surla and Poon (2015) found that Asian-Americans’ decision on what post-secondary institution to attend was primarily determined by “observations of where family and friends attended or suggested,” with some also having a strong preference in being closer to home. Attending a ‘good college’ was not necessarily an ivy league or any other highly selective institution as some may suggest, but rather; it was the consideration to stay within proximity of a trusted family and friends network. While college access and attainment is truly a collective experience for Filipino and Southeast Asian-American students in particular, research also suggests that “Asian-Americans, as a whole, are more likely than other racial groups to apply to highly selective institutions (An, 2010) and are less likely to experience academic undermatch” (Smith et al., 2013).
Takagi (1992) (as cited in Inkelas, 2003), claims Asian-American acceptance rates into elite universities “remained static or even declined during the 1980s” (p. 603). It was believed admission practices at these institutions were intentionally setting acceptance quotas. Brown University and the University of California at Berkeley came forward and admitted to its racially biased admission practices then and soon made revisions to its procedures. While it is highly recommended to create a culturally diverse institution that welcomes everyone, setting racial quotas is an illegal practice and can hurt the university’s reputation if found guilty.
Affirmative action came about as a result of the Civil Rights Movement. Former President John F. Kennedy made an Executive Order directing “government contractors to take affirmative action ‘to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin’” (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). After the Brown v. Board of Education case and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 opened doors specifically for African-Americans at the time, very few people took advantage of the education and employment opportunities that came from it. Also signed as an Executive Order in his presidency, former President Lyndon B. Johnson made it required for “government contractors to implement affirmative action policies through the hiring process to help increase the number of minority employees” (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). While resulting policies and practices were geared toward African-Americans, other people of color were soon enveloped into the affirmative action programs.
Legal issues surfaced following the establishment of voluntary affirmative action policies and changed it to “allow postsecondary admission officers to consider all aspects of an individual’s identity, including their racial or ethnic background, for the purpose of furthering the educational benefits of diversity” (Garces and Poon, 2018). In the Regents of University of California v. Bakke case, Allan Bakke, a white applicant who was denied admission to UC’s medical school twice and was turned down by all other 12 schools he applied to, challenged the affirmative action policy saying UC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Although the school addressed its defense, the Court applied ‘strict scrutiny’ to the case, which requires an institution to have a compelling interest in the policy and race-conscious application must be implemented in a way that is ‘narrowly tailored’ to that interest. Applying this legal test marked an important shift in judicial decision-making, placing a level of accountability for admission practices and framing these policies in the public arena to this day. This opened doors to practicing holistic review, while also still considering race being one of a number of factors when considering an applicant.
While arguments exist suggesting that Asian-Americans are more likely than other racial groups to apply to highly selective institutions, it tends to suggest that they ‘serve as honorary whites’ (Hartlep & Lowinger, 2014). The ‘honorary white’ ideology is used to describe an individual with an oppressed identity and carries white privileges. In this complicated social context, Asian-American students are perceived as those who can pass as the ‘honorary white’ because they carry privileges that other minority groups may not have and white people typically do, especially when it comes to affording the opportunity to have an education. However, this does not mean Asian-Americans have been handed these privileges all throughout history.
Asian-Americans have faced racial bigotry for years and much of that was experienced through the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Japanese-American internment camps, and other discriminatory events throughout American history. Although it seems safe to assume society may be far removed from that extremist time, Asian-Americans continue to be veiled as the missing minority and portrayed in the media as “nothing more than caricatures– the uncouth immigrant, the awkward nerd, or the boring technician” (Liu, 2012). In Hollywood, this is especially true when white actors are cast to play as Asian characters or when Asian-Americans are advised to pass as white. With that being said, it is no surprise Asian-Americans continue to be systematically marginalized just to fit in, all while deliberately diminishing their racial and cultural heritage.
The attempt to pass as white for Asian-Americans is not an uncommon occurrence when applying for college, and it may be a tactic some may unconsciously do because doing so will get them noticed. Liu (2012) shared in his journal article that the Department of Education found Princeton University’s admission officers were relentlessly making racist statements and pointing out stereotypes about students’ applications, and this was especially true for Asian-American and Hispanic applicants (p. 336). The university diminished the qualities of the whole student and instead viewed them as just the stereotype, while also penalizing them for it. To further complicate the validity of this occurrence, Liu (2012) also shared that the Princeton Review published advice for Asian-American students on how they can hide their racial identity in college applications (p. 336-337). Unfortunately, these real examples of deliberate marginalization coming from reputable schools and resources create a perverse incentive for minority students. As a result of this type of ongoing racism, Liu (2012) believes that Asian students adopted by white families, half-Asians with white fathers, and other Asians with white sounding surnames may have a better chance passing as white (p. 337-338).
During the early to mid ‘80s, Asian-American students accused high-profile selective institutions for discrimination, favoring white applicants. The federal government looked into the claims, specifically at Harvard University, UC-Berkeley, and UCLA, and found a multitude of discrepancies in each of school’s admission practices. This claim alleged that the universities maintained quotas against Asian-Americans, but its practices actually involved ‘negative action.’ Kang (as cited in Garces and Poon, 2018) said this phenomenon occurs “when an Asian-American applicant would have been admitted had the individual been a white applicant, in comparison to another white applicant and not any other applicant of color” (p. 9).
According to Garces and Poon (2018), ‘negative action’ against Asian-Americans have since been mistakenly framed the same as ‘affirmative action,’ and much of that has been skewed over the years by conservative politicians and commentators who oppose the practice. This deceptive discourse on affirmative action views Black and Latino students as the real thieves of opportunities that belong to whites and positions Asian-Americans as the one minority victim of this practice, using the ‘high-achiever’ racial stereotype to defend the case. Garces and Poon (2018) believes this perpetuated misinformation purposely dismisses protests against racism, which Asian-Americans also experience, and simultaneously obscures white interests, maintaining a monopoly on access to opportunities. To date through the SFFA v. Harvard University case, we are seeing this situation unfold itself once again to push the political agenda in rolling back affirmative action.
SFFA claims the university holds Asian-American applicants to a higher standard than other minority groups. Harvard University officials defend their use of a holistic admissions process and deny use of a racial quota system. In fact, Harvard University officials defended their practice by sharing that “Asian-Americans made up nearly 23 percent of the most recent class of admitted students, while African American students made up 15 percent and Hispanic or Latino students made up 12 percent” (TIME, 2018). People who support affirmative action have a collective understanding this admission practice has its limitations and believe it is a necessary tool to help recruit and retain diverse students. Julie Park, an associate professor of education at the University of Maryland and served as an expert in the case siding with the university, was quoted saying “I think if this case or another case leads to a nationwide ban on race-conscious admissions, everyone is going to lose out, including Asian-Americans” (TIME, 2018).
The support and against affirmative action may have its divide among the American public, but there appears to be more backing behind it than not. According to a report released by the Pew Research Center, the support for affirmative action among the American public increased from 50 percent to 78 percent, a 12 percent jump between the years of 1995 to 2007 (Pew Research Center, 2007). Academically selective university officials, including Harvard University, have voiced their support and inferred there is a “compelling interest in ensuring that their student bodies incorporate the experiences and talents of the wide spectrum of racial and ethnic groups that make up our society” (American Civil Liberties Union, 2018). The case against affirmative action highlights the racial preferences that come hidden within the agenda. One major point stemming from this is the idea that “affirmative action policies lower standards and make students less accountable” (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). For example, if standards from test scores are lowered for underrepresented students then it may only encourage them to meet just the minimum requirement to be admitted.
Overview of Functional Area
In higher education, affirmative action efforts are largely focused in college admission offices. Admission counselors, who work within that office and are a representative of the university, recruit prospective students and communicate with them throughout the application process. These individuals will travel as far as the other side of the world to meet with prospective students and talk about the college opportunities and experiences their represented university could mean for the students’ future. If a prospective student is interested in applying for the institution, they may connect with an admission counselor to understand a few other details about the university before officially submitting an application. College applications that make it through the screening system are then split up between the admission counselor staff to review individually and determine if said student is accepted or not. Most universities across the nation adopted a holistic review into its admission process, which is designed to be a “flexible, individualized way for schools to consider an applicant’s capabilities” (Association of American Medical Colleges, n.d.). This approach gives individualized consideration for every applicant and takes into account the whole applicant. Selection criteria are strategically crafted to ensure university admission “processes are both mission- and evidence-based, promote diversity, and uses a balance of experiences, attributes, and academic metrics” (Association of American Medical Colleges, n.d.). While the admission practice is generally similar across the board, the way this functional area administers/manages multiculturalism, diversity, and inclusion in its mission, goals, and practices can be different depending on the institution.
Case Western Reserve University (CWRU)
CWRU is a four-year, mid-sized, private research institution located in Cleveland, OH with a total enrollment including more than 11,000 students, most of whom seek to attain a degree in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) field. The university’s mission is to:
Support advancement of thriving disciplines as well as new areas of
interdisciplinary excellence; provide students with the knowledge, skills, and
experiences necessary to become leaders in a world characterized by rapid change
and increasing interdependence; nurture a community of exceptional scholars who
are cooperative and collegial, functioning in an atmosphere distinguished by
support, mentoring and inclusion; pursue distinctive opportunities to build on our
special features, including our relationships with world-class health care, cultural,
educational, and scientific institutions in University Circle and across greater
Cleveland (Case Western Reserve University, 2018c).
Through this university-wide mission, Undergraduate Admission connects with prospective students worldwide who can thrive in the suburban university environment that is demographically diverse in nature. To date, there are more than 80 countries represented within the undergraduate and graduate international student body makeup. Of the Class of 2021 makeup (i.e. admitted first-time, first-year students for Fall 2017), 48 percent of those students identify as white, 20 percent are Asian-American, 14 percent are international students, 7 percent are Hispanic/Latino, 4 percent are Black or African-American, 1 percent are American-Indian/Alaskan Native, 1 percent are Pacific Islander, and 1 percent are an undetermined race (Case Western Reserve University, 2018b).
Of the many recruitment events Undergraduate Admission hosts every year, its fall Diversity Overnight program is one example that is designed “for smart and curious high school seniors from diverse backgrounds” (Case Western Reserve University, 2018a). Interested prospective students can complete a form online to apply to this program. Questions on the application form ask students to indicate how they identify themselves (i.e. Hispanic, Asian, White, Black or African-American, etc.) and what of the following statements (i.e. I am the first in my family to attend college, I have received or am eligible to receive an ACT or SAT testing fee waiver, I am enrolled in or am eligible to participate in the Federal Free or Reduced Price Lunch program, etc.) apply to them (Case Western Reserve University, 2018a). There is also an opportunity for interested prospective students to submit a couple of short essays sharing who inspires them and describing what they believe their future will be like. Accepted students into the program will then get an arranged trip to campus and meet with other attendees, who may also come with a similar, diversified background.
Harvard University
Harvard University is a four-year, private ivy league institution located in Cambridge, MA with a total enrollment including more than 22,000 students. While the university does not have a formal mission statement, it mission is to “educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society” (Harvard University, 2018c) through its respected liberal arts and sciences education.
Undergraduate Admissions connects with prospective students by highlighting its affordability, transformative education, experiential opportunities, and welcoming community. Of the Class of 2022 makeup as outlined through its Harvard Admitted Students Profile, 22.9 percent are Asian-American, 15.2 percent are African-American, 12.3 percent are Hispanic or Latino, 1.9 percent are Native American, 0.4 are Native Hawaiian (Harvard University, 2018a). Through the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations, the university boasts how it “sponsors more than 50 cultural, ethnic, and international organizations, as well as groups representing nearly every religious and political perspective” (Harvard University, 2018b).
Unique to the institution, Undergraduate Admissions sponsors the Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Program (UMRP). UMRP was established to expand awareness of and provide information about the university’s diverse campus community and its application process, much of which is communicated through on-campus and overnight visits. The student coordinators, who are staffed as part of the UMRP program, fields questions about the college experience and the application process for minority middle and high school students (Harvard University, 2018d).
While CWRU and Harvard University are relatively similar in nature and have parallel initiatives that highlight multiculturalism, diversity, and inclusion through its mission, goals, and practices, the programs shared are just a few that directly positively influence and support students of all backgrounds. As proven through the Surla and Poon (2015) study, Asian-Americans find value in participating in college preparation programs or any other resources that assist in the exploration of post-secondary opportunities. Establishing a welcoming affinity group, as part of the experience, also adds another layer of interest for Asian-Americans and their decision in choosing a college. Without programs like CWRU’s Diversity Overnight program or Harvard University’s UMRP program that intentionally connect students with a campus community they can identify with, the likeliness of attending and thriving within the institution is slim.
Implications & Recommendation
Three implications emerged from reviewing current literature on Asian-Americans and their college application journey, much of which disproportionately skews their individual collegiate experiences. As affirmative action becomes a buzzword in higher education coming in with its own set of implications through the admission process, the education piece of how the practice best supports minorities keeps getting lost in translation throughout time. While Asian-Americans are often stereotyped as high-achieving students, there continues to be misconceptions in the media on how they are weighed during the admission process, especially between white peers and people of color. Instead of perpetuating the thought of categorizing Asian-Americans as the ‘model minority,’ it is important for university admission processes to consider ways to support these diverse needs and college choices through the students’ lens.
Educating on the Purpose of Affirmative Action
With the SFFA v. Harvard University case, the purpose of applying affirmative action practices through the admission application process is being challenged in the courts. This affirmative action policy was designed to advance racial equity and recognize student talents, and yet there are arguments suggesting that Asian-Americans are the one minority group being disadvantaged from the practice. History is starting to look like it is repeating itself with Edward Blum, a conservative legal strategist and known for orchestrating legal challenges against racial preference laws, spearheading the fight with SFFA in ending race preferences. While calling out a namely institution such as Harvard University for considering race in its admission process may seem substantiated from the surface level, it is possible that Blum may take up on the opportunity to continue the fight in rolling back affirmative action. This, of course, can actually be problematic for people of color, including Asian-Americans, admitting into colleges and immersing themselves through the college community moving forward.
Understanding College Admission Challenges
As mentioned earlier, not all Asian-Americans have the same college choice decision-making experience. While it is true that Asian-Americans often value family opinions when it comes to choosing a college, there are also plenty of other factors that also play an important role in that influence. First-generation, Asian-Americans come with their own set of challenges in trying to navigate the college search on their own, as there may not be any family who are not familiar with the American college process. On a national scale, Southeast Asian-Americans in particular have among the lowest rates of Bachelor’s Degree attainment (CARE, 2010). Poon and Byrd (2013) suggest that admission counselors “pay close attention to how different factors shape the way these diverse students navigate the opportunity system” and be more aware of the ethnic and socioeconomic diversity in order to best support Asian-Americans through the college process.
Recognizing the Need for Continued Support and Research
Poon and Byrd (2013) recognize that Asian-Americans are frequently left out from the discussion when it comes to college choice presenting racial analyses. As mentioned earlier, Asian-Americans are often see as the ‘model minority’ so there is a presumed assumption that they are well resources and informed in the college-going process (Poon and Byrd, 2013). That is not always the case. With an emphasis on identifying the needs for underrepresented students, the focus tends to shift away from pulling resources together for Asian-American student growth and development. At an institution like CWRU and Harvard University where Asian-Americans are the larger represented minority groups, admission counselors can consider supporting programs that meet the students’ individual, diverse needs and creating a culture where they can embrace their identity with others just like them.
Conclusion
With all things considered through the literature review, there is more left to explore with Asian-Americans and their role strictly with the affirmative action policies in college admissions. While there are studies that do exist about Asian-Americans and how they choose to navigate the college search process–some of which were presented earlier in the literature review–it is still relatively unclear how Asian-Americans are typically weighed between whites and other people of color from a university admission standpoint. The holistic approach is relatively a unique admissions practice designed to get a 360 degree view on the whole student, much like Harvard University’s personal rating scale that is being challenged in the courts. The open SFFA v. Harvard University case is the most current case unfolding in the courts right now to determine if Asian-Americans were being penalized for their race during the holistic review. If the case shifts in favor against the university, there will be follow up to determine if the outcome will set precedent for future affirmative action practices. In my opinion, the thought of rolling back affirmative action can dangerously hurt opportunities for people of color, including Asian-Americans. With the many social challenges Asian-Americans face just getting through the admission application process, wiping out this policy can make efforts more challenging and competitive than it already is. In order for the community at large to get behind this understanding, it will be important to address the misconceptions of the policy and gather a more comprehensive reporting on Asian-Americans’ influence within the scale.