Hi, welcome to America Uncovered. I'm your host Chris Chappell.
Asian Americans. Such an incredibly diverse group of people.
Chinese, Indian, Hmong, Cambodian, Bangladeshi...
there are 23 countries in what most people think of as Asia.
That does not include the Middle East, Central Asia,
or that giant part of Russia that everyone forgets about.
Oh, and as if Asians weren't diverse enough,
we throw Pacific Islanders in with them,
because where else are they going to go?
They're stuck in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
So the question is
how can we lump these people all together to check off a box on a form?
But wait, I know what all Asian Americans have in common!
They're not nearly as likable as other ethnicities.
No, that's not me saying that.
That's what Harvard University says, according to a lawsuit.
"Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower
than others on traits like 'positive personality,'
likability, courage, kindness and being 'widely respected.'"
Those are allegations in a lawsuit filed against Harvard in 2015
by a coalition of more than 60 Asian American groups.
They're now being represented by Students for Fair Admissions—SFFA.
The group "largely focuses on Asian Americans."
And it's headed by Edward Blum,
a staunch opponent of affirmative action policies.
The lawsuit alleges Harvard University discriminates against Asian Americans
in admission practices—that it's basically affirmative action gone wrong.
Asian Americans as a whole are more likely to have
higher test scores, better grades, and more extracurricular activities.
But despite that,
they have a tougher time gaining access to an Ivy League education.
Which if you think about it,
just perpetuates the problem in a never-ending cycle of Tiger moms.
Harvard has admitted that in a 2013 internal review,
"If Harvard considered only academic achievement,
the Asian-American share of the class would rise to 43 percent
from the actual 19 percent."
Now that would be similar to numbers at universities
like the California Institute of Technology, or the University of California,
where admission is based strictly on academics.
The SFFA adds to their lawsuit claim,
"An Asian-American male applicant with a 25 percent chance of admission
would have a 35 percent chance if he were white,
75 percent chance if he were Hispanic
and 95 percent chance if he were black."
But despite the findings of Harvard's 2013 internal review,
"Instead of taking even the most minor steps to address this problem,
or conducting any further investigation,
Harvard killed the investigation and buried the reports," according to SFFA.
In fact, Harvard has a history of discrimination against Asian Americans.
Asians weren't even recognized as a minority group until 1976,
the same year the school
"[refused] to admit two Chinese women
to a freshman minority orientation banquet."
The SFFA "compare[s] Harvard's treatment of Asian-Americans
with its well-documented campaign
to reduce the growing number of Jews
being admitted to Harvard in the 1920s."
Back then, Harvard didn't want a blatant quota system
since it could generate bad publicity.
Instead, they used a vague, subjective criteria
based on "character, personality and promise."
The court documents call Harvard's discrimination against Jews
the original sin of holistic admissions,
which is a term for accepting students based on qualities that can't be measured.
What's that, Shelley?
Harvard sucks and who would want to go there anyway?
You...got rejected from Harvard, didn't you?
Ok, I won't tell your parents.
The point is, Harvard, like many universities,
has a bad history of racial discrimination.
But attempts to address that discrimination have also been controversial.
Race quotas were ruled unconstitutional in a 1978 Supreme Court case.
But in a 2003 case, the Supreme Court
established that student diversity has inherent value.
And in a 2016 case, the Supreme Court ruled that
"considerable deference is owed to a university
in defining those intangible characteristics,
like student body diversity,
that are central to its identity and educational mission."
Effectively, these Supreme Court decisions
mean that race can be used as one factor among many
to promote student body diversity.
So while having quotas for race is illegal,
you can use other methods to get more students of a certain race
as long as these methods are not based only on race.
And really, is it Harvard's fault if Asians just don't have "positive personalities"?
And if you think that all sounds complicated and vague
in ways that can easily lead to unfairness
you would be right!
Statistically in the US,
Asian Americans outperform Blacks, Latinos, and whites
in high school grades and on SATs.
So under policies like Harvard's,
it's disproportionally harder for Asian Americans to be granted admission.
And this can be even more unfair for some Asian Americans.
Because while lots of Chinese American students make it into top universities,
a lot fewer Laotian, Cambodian, and Hmong students do.
They're even less represented in universities than Blacks,
and often come from poorer backgrounds.
But for admissions purposes,
all Asians get lumped together in a single group.
That's what they get for coming from the largest landmass in the world.
If only Pangea had broken up into smaller pieces.
One Princeton University study
looked at how much advantage and disadvantage
each broad racial group has when applying to elite universities.
It found that "The bonus for African-American applicants
is roughly equivalent to an extra 230 SAT points"
and "185 points for Hispanics".
But "The Asian disadvantage is comparable to a loss of 50 SAT points."
Which means that, on average,
an Asian American would need to score
50 SAT points higher than a white person,
and a whopping 280 points higher than a Black person,
to get merely an equal shot at being admitted.
Wait a minute.
Asian Americans effectively get a 50-point penalty on the SATs?
I think that means that I actually scored higher on the SATs than Shelley! Yes!
Ahem.
Here's a different Princeton study on affirmative action.
It's called "Ending affirmative action
would devastate most minority college enrollment".
Sounds like ending Affirmative Action
would be bad for minority students, right?
Well according the study,
it would result in "sharp declines in the numbers
of African Americans and Hispanics
accepted with little gain for white students."
But "Asian students would fill
nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class
not taken by African-American and Hispanic students."
So in a way, affirmative action sounds like
it's become a form of institutionalized racism
where the biggest victims are Asian Americans.
So what has been the response to the lawsuit against Harvard
the one brought by Students for Fair Admissions?
Well, Harvard has denied wrongdoing.
It defended universities' right to use race as a factor in college admissions.
Others were quick to defend Harvard,
saying this whole thing is a plot by Edward Blum
and the Trump Administration to promote a racist agenda.
This brief in support of Harvard from students and alumni
"condemn" the ones suing Harvard for their
"attempt to manufacture conflict between racial and ethnic groups
in order to revive an unrelenting agenda
to dismantle efforts to create a racially diverse
and inclusive student body through college admissions."
Jeannie Park, the head of the Harvard Asian-American Alumni Alliance
and co-founder of the Coalition for a Diverse Harvard, said
"It's alarming that Trump is aligning himself
with anti-civil rights activist Edward Blum
in this subversive attempt to say that civil rights protections cause discrimination.
Trump does not speak for Asian-Americans, just as Blum does not."
Vox says this is a case of
"The 'racial mascoting' of Asians" by whites
to eliminate Affirmative Action.
But SFFA says it has no intention of promoting a pro-white agenda.
Especially since "White applicants would be most hurt
if Asian-American admissions rose."
In other words, the Trump administration
is being accused of racism
for pushing for universities to ignore race
even though this move would actually hurt white applicants.
So you might be wondering
how is the Trump administration involved in all this?
Well, the Justice Department, which is part of the executive branch,
released this statement of interest about the case.
It says, "Harvard's race-based admissions process
significantly disadvantages Asian-American applicants
compared to applicants of other racial groups
including both white applicants and applicants
from other racial minority groups."
It goes on to say, you know,
Harvard gets millions of taxpayer dollars every year
so the case really should at least be heard in court,
instead of dismissed before trial, like Harvard wants.
That could mean the case eventually goes
all the way to the US Supreme Court,
just like many affirmative action-related cases have
over the last 40 years.
And by that point, the Supreme Court will have
at least two justices appointed by Trump.
And depending on how the Supreme Court rules,
that could change the way colleges and universities
across the country look at affirmative action forever.
This is not the first time the Trump administration
has been accused of setting its sights on affirmative action.
In July, the Education and Justice department
reversed Obama era guidelines on affirmative action.
They said those Obama era guidelines
went beyond what was called for in the Constitution.
Then in August, the New York Times reported the Department of Justice
was redirecting resources to investigate and sue universities
over affirmative action policies that discriminate against whites.
Although as it turns out,
that New York Times report had a major error.
The Justice Department corrected them, saying,
no, the investigation was on the Harvard case
about discrimination against Asian Americans, not whites.
So how did all this whole Affirmative Action thing get started?
Affirmative action began in 1961,
in an executive order by President John F Kennedy.
It called on government contractors to, quote,
"take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed
without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."
In other words, under President Kennedy,
affirmative action meant being blind to race.
But then in 1969, President Richard Nixon
issued the revised Philadelphia Plan.
It called on requiring government contractors to, quote,
"take affirmative action to hire minority workers"
as a way to compensate for the injustices minorities
often faced when they applied for jobs.
Bet you don't think of Nixon promoting affirmative action.
Anyway, as time went on, affirmative action evolved
to not just compensate for the disadvantages minorities may face presently,
but also to compensate for the historical injustices
that minorities have faced in the past.
But redressing historical injustices can be dicey.
Especially considering that Chinese
also faced serious discrimination in the US,
including the Chinese Exclusion Act,
which didn't effectively end until 1965
the same era as the Civil Rights Movement.
But today, Chinese Americans significantly outperform whites in school.
So affirmative action is not helping them.
So there's a wide range of views on affirmative action.
Some say it was necessary once,
but there's been so much progress in 50 years
it's no longer necessary.
Others say we still need it,
because admissions and hiring are still unequal across races.
Still others say that the way current system is being implemented,
it's turned into a form of systemic racism against Asian Americans.
And yet others say white people
are using so-called discrimination of Asian Americans
to justify destroying affirmative action
and oppressing other minorities.
The most recent Supreme Court decision in 2016
on affirmative action was split 4 to 3.
And the court said that that particular case was unique
and their decision to uphold the University of Texas's admissions policy
did not mean that all affirmative action policies were constitutional.
In fact, they said that
"It remains an enduring challenge to our Nation's education system
to reconcile the pursuit of diversity
with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity."
So if the Harvard lawsuit makes it to the Supreme Court,
it could be an interesting case to follow.
So what do you think about the lawsuit against Harvard?
Leave your comments below.
And before you go,
creating a show with this level of research isn't easy.
That's why Shelley, Matt, and I rely on viewer support
to buy coffee so we can keep making this show.
Precious, precious coffee.
So join us by going to our crowdfunding website Patreon,
and contribute a dollar or more per episode.
As a way of saying thanks,
you'll get to have a say in what future episodes we make.
So head over to patreon.com/americauncovered.
Once again I'm your host Chris Chappell.
Thanks for watching America Uncovered.
For more infomation >> Iran accuse US of 'economic TERRORISM' at UN meeting as tensions with Trump SOAR - Duration: 3:35. 
For more infomation >> China and US military ties may be in a downward spiral 'for a long time' - Duration: 3:17. 
For more infomation >> BREAKING NEWS: Third Kavanaugh accuser is decorated US government employee - Duration: 2:36. 
For more infomation >> US economy grows 4.2% in second quarter - Duration: 6:56. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét