Affirmative Action and the Myth of Self-Acceptance

One of the most heartbreaking things I’ve heard during my time at Stuyvesant came when I was listening to one of my best friends, stricken by underclassman anxiety while watching her favorite seniors get into college, lament about how unlucky she felt to be Asian. She felt that her own race, a factor she had no control over, caused colleges to raise their standards for her astronomically. Tragically, her opinions mirror the sentiments of many of the Asian majority here and elsewhere throughout the nation, and it led me to realize some of the harsh truths of the Asian experience in college admissions.

Academics and college admissions are heavily emphasized in Asian culture, and the 74 percent Asian majority of Stuyvesant is not an exception. Students carefully plan out their futures and willingly throw themselves at a burdensome number of AP and honors classes, knowing full well the exertion that goes into such classes (exacerbated by Stuyvesant’s accelerated curriculum). All the while, they pursue their passions through extracurriculars, which constitute a significant portion of their time and take a good chunk out of their sleep. Remarkably, Stuyvesant students are aware of this and do it anyway, and at the same time, they seem to become visibly upset when their bodies, unable to endure the extreme lack of sleep, shut down against their will. The takeaway here is that Stuyvesant students are among the hardest-working students in our state, if not our nation, regardless of race. We work for our passions, but more so for our futures (which, in our age, means college).

However, many students become disillusioned with the college edition of the American Dream, upon realizing that there are a multitude of factors beyond their control influencing their chances of getting into their dream schools, including a subjective interviewer, teacher recommendations, income, legacy admissions, and finally, race.

While we should never view college as the culmination and goal of our youth, concerns about higher education take up much of our lives right now, and higher education will likely play a significant role in our futures. Therefore, the question of race-based admissions warrants intense scrutiny. How is it that Asians, who comprise the smallest ethnic group (6.9 percent) of America, are deserted by colleges looking to increase on-campus diversity? Part of the answer lies in stereotypes stemming from the 1965 Immigration Act, which placed immigration quotas on Asian countries. As they were now heavily competing for spots, wealthy (and subsequently, educated) Asians were by far the most able to immigrate to the U.S. By showing great preference for highly educated Asian immigrants, the law altered the public’s perception of Asian-Americans from marginal members of society to industrious and intelligent individuals.

As a result, Asians are held to noticeably high standards. In his extensive study of over 9000 students at elite universities, Princeton researcher Thomas Espenshade discovered that, on average, Asian students must score 140 points higher than white applicants, 270 points higher than Hispanic applicants, and 450 points higher than African-American applicants on the SAT to be considered in an equal light. Here, opponents might retort by claiming that neither colleges nor the real world take grades and academics into consideration; less tangible qualities, including leadership, charisma, and friendliness are just as, if not more, important. It’s also been revealed that prestigious schools like Harvard also tend to score Asians worse in subjective categories such as personality. This stands as a painful reflection of the institution’s actions in the 1920s and 30s, when it placed hidden quotas on Jewish students, who seemed to constitute overwhelming numbers in the school while comprising a small fraction of the nation’s population, by introducing a more “holistic” (subjective) approach to admissions. Harvard introduced characteristics like leadership and likability and placed much less emphasis on exam scores. While such traits are crucial to success in the real world, they allow much more room for bias than pure academics do. Surely enough, Jewish admission rates plummeted, and to this day, we gaze upon it in distaste as an unacceptable act of pure anti-Semitism. Caltech, which does not take race into account at all, gives us even more of a red flag when it comes to race-based admissions; it has an incredibly high Asian population making up 40 percent of the student body.

Making Asians less “desirable” in the eyes of colleges is racist. And while many, including myself, would agree that diversity is one of the greatest attributes of any student body, the severity of affirmative action has crossed the clearly delineated boundary between the well-intentioned and the discriminatory. Why should college admissions counselors have to advise their clients on how to look “less Asian”? In a world where we preach “ethnic pride” and courage to flaunt one’s ethnicity/nationality, this seems incredibly hypocritical.

The tendency to excel academically, often associated with Asians, does not ensure that an Asian will automatically ace the SAT, and it is illogical to expect more from Asians because of this stereotype. This is the model minority myth, and it is disastrous. The myth paints an entire ethnic group as a shining “example.” To raise the standards for Asian admission is to deny the unacceptable high school dropout rates of Cambodian, Hmong, and Laotian-Americans, and shove such pitiful statistics behind a false curtain of phony success. The misleading portrait of one ethnic group as a shining monolith of success seems, at first glance, a compliment, but it obfuscates discrimination and rejects Asian-Americans who are genuinely struggling.

Colleges and advocates of affirmative action tend to retort with the fact that diversity is the key to an open-minded, accepting, and ultimately successful student body. While this is an indisputable point, they are fundamentally incorrect when they assume that increased admissions of Asians bring less diversity. This is because they group 48 ethnic groups into the insultingly large umbrella term of “Asian”; however, history demonstrates that the numerous physical divides in Asia have led to the creation of unique cultures that may as well be separated by oceans. The cultural difference between the Indian and the Chinese, both herded into the overly general “Asian” category, is just as vast as the mountains that divide them. Both bring a unique nuance to the world of college education, and this mixture already provides the beautiful set of new perspectives that affirmative action claims to bring.

With all of these things in mind, it seems impossible to reach a resolution taking both merit and diversity into consideration in college admissions. However, class-based admissions, an often overlooked method, can prove to be a far greater agent for both. Instead of lamenting the statistics indicating that Hispanic and black students are, on average, less academically successful, we should strive to view the overarching picture and ask ourselves: why has it come to be this way? These same ethnic groups have been discriminated against for centuries—which is common knowledge—and have been hindered from enjoying economic success through prejudiced laws and employer bias. As a result, it is much more difficult for black and Latino students to attain academic success; many have not even satisfied the more basic need for a steady source of family income. Academics would naturally be the least of their concerns. Similarly, Asians are not exempt from the fatal vortex of poverty; class can hinder or boost anyone equally, with substantial effects. These effects cannot be overlooked in the college process.

On the other hand, wealthy families and legacies automatically have increased opportunity. If we’d like to address inherent disadvantage, reviewing income would be the most effective tactic; this can also be a less discriminatory avenue to racial diversity: The New York Times has revealed that for every $100 of wealth possessed by white families, black families possess only $5.04. If affirmative action must be retained, then it must, at the least, take into consideration the underprivileged ethnic groups that have been placed under the umbrella term “Asian.” This, again, can be facilitated by the increased emphasis on income.

Take caution before you choose to label Asians as a bland class of Xeroxed traditions and personalities. Some of us practice filial piety and exchange little red envelopes filled with love and money. Some of us have jubilant festivals where we splash splendid spectrums of colors onto each other in celebration of the gods. Some of us celebrate our own cultural Thanksgiving with pink, green, and white red bean cakes in place of turkey; wheat pancakes filled with surprisingly delicious greens instead of pudding; and savory, exotic zucchini covered with fried egg instead of sliced apples. Many of us are, indeed, worlds apart, and our sole similarity—Asianness—should never be anything we are afraid to bubble in on a small Scantron that might dictate the rest of our lives.