Recently, after a nearly two-year investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice determined that Yale University discriminates against Asian and White applicants in undergraduate admissions. Specifically, Asian and White applicants are admitted at one-tenth to one-quarter the rate of African American applicants.
Yale Admissions Suspected of Racial Discrimination?
First, let’s sort out three key points of this Yale admissions discrimination case:
-
In 2016, Yale University was complained by the Asian American Coalition for Education (AACE) for illegally discriminating against Asian students in admissions;
-
On August 13, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Yale had engaged in illegal discriminatory practices in its undergraduate admissions process and ordered it to immediately cease making race-based admissions decisions;
-
Yale University responded defiantly, stating it would not change its admissions process.
In the DOJ’s report, Yale illegally discriminates against Asian and White applicants in undergraduate admissions. According to a two-year investigation, Yale uses race and national origin each year to deny admission to some Asian and White applicants who would otherwise meet admissions requirements, and race has even become a determinative factor in Yale’s annual admissions decisions.
Yale’s actions, like those Harvard was accused of, violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act:
“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
As a university that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, Yale must comply with this law. The DOJ has ordered Yale to stop race- and national origin-based admissions decisions in the upcoming admissions cycle.
Yale’s Defiant Response
Yale swiftly responded, with a spokesperson calling the DOJ’s order “meritless” and “hasty” in a statement and flatly denying the allegations.
In a letter to the university community that day, Yale President Peter Salovey stated, “Yale will not change its admissions process in response to today’s allegations. We will continue to evaluate applicants as whole individuals and bring together students of different backgrounds, talents, and abilities to prepare them for a more vibrant and diverse world.”
Salovey said that Yale had cooperated fully with the DOJ’s investigation over the past two years, continuously handing over extensive information and data. He argued that if the DOJ had weighed this information fully, it would not have reached such a vague and hasty conclusion, and that Yale’s practices are fully consistent with decades of Supreme Court precedent.
The Supreme Court does allow race to be considered as one factor in college admissions, but race-based admissions decisions must be “narrowly tailored” to serve the goal of promoting student diversity.
However, the DOJ stated on its website that race is not “narrowly tailored” in Yale’s admissions process and is arguably abused. For the vast majority of students with comparable academic profiles, Asian and White applicants are admitted at one-tenth to one-quarter the rate of African American applicants.
The DOJ indicated that if Yale does not modify its undergraduate admissions process by August 27, it will file a lawsuit. Given Yale’s current strong resistance, another prolonged legal battle is likely.
Harvard Won Its Asian Admissions Discrimination Case Last Year
Do you remember the sensational “Harvard won the Asian admissions discrimination case” that rocked higher education circles last year?
In 2014, a nonprofit organization called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed a lawsuit alleging that Harvard discriminated against Asian applicants in admissions and limited the number of admitted Asian American applicants. SFFA analyzed over 160,000 student application files and found that Harvard consistently gave Asian applicants much lower “personality” ratings than applicants of other ethnicities.
Based on Harvard’s admissions trends in recent years, to have the same chance of admission as other ethnic groups, Asian students need to score 140 points higher on the SAT (out of 1600) than White students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students, and 450 points higher than Black students.
Harvard rallied 16 top universities, including Yale and Stanford, and 36 organizations to defend its admissions process.
Last October, the lawsuit concluded with a victory for Harvard. According to the judge’s ruling, Harvard’s admissions program was “not perfect,” but “there was no evidence of racial animus.” However, Yale, which was also accused of discriminating against Asian applicants and had supported Harvard, was determined by the DOJ this year to have engaged in racial discrimination in its admissions process.
Beware of Reverse Racism
Some U.S. media commentators argue that these race-based admissions are essentially indistinguishable from racial discrimination. The historical discrimination against African American and Hispanic applicants was a serious problem in higher education, and now “the pendulum is swinging hard in the opposite direction.”
The targets of discrimination have shifted to White and Asian applicants, and on Ivy League campuses, African American and Hispanic students are sometimes placed there artificially just to increase the “diversity” of the university.
Elite universities should be based on meritocracy. Overemphasizing racial diversity at the expense of academic achievement will only fuel racial divisions and prejudice.
Getting into an Ivy League school is hard enough; we cannot allow the excellence of the Asian community as a whole to become an obstacle in the path. If Asian applicants are more qualified than applicants of other ethnicities, then in fairness schools should give more admissions spots to Asian students.
On the other hand, for schools that do not discriminate and admit many Asian/Chinese or Chinese international students, some Chinese people ironically develop a kind of “discrimination,” thinking that a high number of Chinese students means the school or program is “watered down.”
We hope everyone can realize that the high number of Chinese students is simply because we have worked harder to get into top schools and are more outstanding than others. Educational equity and resource fairness are what we have always pursued, but we still have a long way to go on the road to fairness.
