
Asian American Discrimination in Harvard Admissions [pdf] - Reedx
http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/realpenalty.pdf
======
dnautics
Not Harvard, but (being Asian American) this sort of soft characterization as
being deficient in personality metrics rings true in my head.

For starters, my father in his full time government job repeatedly got "no
leadership potential" reviews. Meanwhile in his part time job with the US
Navy, he advanced to the level of captain and in his final act for the Navy
led a team that completed its first fully digitized inventory system, saving
the Navy billions of dollars, and delivered it under budget and ahead of time.
(Fwiw he was non-technical, just "good at making things happen for nerds", his
words not mine)

In my personal life, I've encountered several situations where people have
expressed to me explicitly or implicitly they didn't consider me to be leader-
worthy despite my having successfully managed small teams several times in my
career.

~~~
woofie11
Cultural differences are big here too.

Asian American culture leads to personalities which are not considered
leadership-worthy in WASP culture. You're not alone there. The same is true
for people from most cultures -- African immigrants, Eastern European
immigrants, and most other types of immigrants behave in ways which are too
foreign.

It's not universal -- there are individuals who manage to culturally adapt.
But they're a minority, and it's an uphill battle.

Actual performance tends to be excellent, but that's not how leaders get
chosen in most organizations. Leadership decisions are almost entirely about
perception: Do your employees like you and relate well to you? Your superiors?
That has a huge cultural component, and a lot of room for racism.

~~~
asiachick
What cultural differences are these? We're talking about Americans not
foreigners.

All my Asian American friends are just Americans. If you talked talked to them
on the phone you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from any other American.

~~~
achenatx
Im asian-american and there are substantial differences between asian culture
(especially if your parents are immigrants) from a typical white person greek
system culture (even ivy league greek culture).

Keep your head down, dont make waves, dont ask for raises, dont cause trouble,
follow the rules, be humble, are all great for fitting in to the machine, but
not necessarily for becoming a leader.

In my neighborhood (mostly wealthy white) the people are so pushy, I can't
believe the expectations they have for how the world should cater to them for
every little thing.

~~~
ip26
I would guess the wealth more than anything is what makes people pushy like
that.

Commuting through residential areas by bike, all the most entitled car drivers
are found in the wealthy neighborhoods. (For example cutting me off or turning
in front of me when I have right of way)

------
TheAsprngHacker
I am an Asian-American high school senior who is nearing the end of the
college admissions process.

I am so frustrated and angry that there is this discrimination, and people
defend it. I feel that people don't take racism against Asian-Americans as
seriously as racism against other groups.

Here's more about me. Like many people on HN, I'm a programmer. I'm interested
in functional programming, programming language theory, and type theory. These
interests caused me to discover pure math (such as category theory), and
although I do not know as much about math than about programming, I want to
learn more because I find these ideas elegant and beautiful. (For example, the
Curry-Howard correspondence, which links programming to logic through the idea
that programs are proofs, or HoTT, which gives types higher-dimensional
structure based on the idea that equality types are the isomorphisms of an
infinity-groupoid.)

I applied as a CS major to several colleges where PL theory had an academic
presence, and in my supplemental essays, I discussed my interests and my
desire to work with professors and do undergraduate research. I have
competitive stats. Although other kids in my school got into my "reaches"
(e.g. Cornell), I got rejected, but luckily I got into some "match" schools
that did PL theory.

It's hard to say if affirmative action made a difference. Maybe if my
application were exactly the same, but I weren't Asian, I would have gotten
in, and if my application were the same except that I got an A instead of a B+
in a class, I would also have gotten in. I got waitlisted from some highly
competitive schools, so I could have been on the edge. A big part of me not
knowing how much my race would have made a difference is how non-transparent
college admissions are. It's left up to some nebulous idea of "fit" decided by
a group of people sitting at a table, who only have a few minutes to spend on
each applicant.

But, what bothers me is the stereotypes. They've turned liking math and CS
into a bad thing, at least when it's an Asian kid who's doing it. People
defend affirmative action by saying that there are simply too many highly
competitive Asian kids who want to study computer science. So, if I want to go
to a good school, I shouldn't study computer science, even though that's what
I want to do, just because of the way I was born? Among non-CS people, CS is
probably seen as the stereotype track to get a high-paying job (and cynically,
perhaps it's a popular major for this reason), but hopefully on a site such as
HN, people will be more empathetic to the appeal of CS.

I'm also frustrated because most people probably don't know how math really is
like. People just see it as nerdy word problems, and they've never heard of
ideas like constructive math, programs-as-proofs, Cartesian closed categories,
etc that I've become so intimate with. Why is it bad that I love math?
Shouldn't you encourage me to learn this? I guess it's similar to the old
stereotype of the "nerd" with no social skills, except with a racial element
now.

It's a Catch-22 because people hold Asians to a higher standard, so we need to
get higher grades and test scores to be competitive, then that feeds back into
the stereotype that we are overly studious and have no personality. There is
no winning for us in this game. Isn't it an objectively good thing to do well
in school? If it were someone who weren't Asian, people would see high scores
and grades as a positive thing or even cheer it on as a sign of increasing
equality. Like all competitive high schoolers (of all races), we must play the
game of having loads of AP classes, etc, but people specifically see Asians
doing this as a negative stereotype.

But, on the front of us studying too much and not having personality, if you
play an instrument, people will assume that you're doing it because your
parents made you, or because of college admissions. Music is truly a beautiful
thing and I experienced just how heartfelt it can be. (Sidenote: Watch Hibike!
Euphonium or Your Lie in April!) But, just like the universal language of
math, people have somehow turned Asians practicing the universal language of
music into a bad thing. I can't imagine stronger proof of not being a robot,
of being human, than experiencing how music can move you.

I implore you, in the meritocratic tradition of the hacker culture, to speak
out against affirmative action and support Asian kids who want to pursue these
passions.

EDIT: In fact, "affirmative action" is a euphemism. It's a vague-sounding term
(an action that affirms something?) because people don't want to say "racial
discrimination." Words have power to influence people, so I should start
calling it what it is.

~~~
JPKab
White dude here:

I went to a mostly black high school. My best friend had lower GPA, and lower
SAT scores by 190 points. He and I were looking forward to attending same
college. We applied to same major. He was admitted. I was wait listed.
Ironically, my family was much poorer (trailer park) than his, and he felt
much worse about it than I did. He assumed it was due to him being black, but
no way to know for sure. I just made a point of visiting him a lot from the
state school a few hours away.

Instead of dwelling on it, make the most of the college you DO attend.
Remember that in the long run, your work and passions define your success far
more than the institution you attend as a dumb 20 year old.

Race based affirmative action is silly, but I tell my son and daughter, who
are mixed race (half Asian, white), that they need to focus on what they CAN
control, rather than what they can't.

In the meantime, policies in the federal government designed to help
descendants of slaves brought to US from Africa are benefiting wealthy people
whose highly educated parents came here from Nigeria, because the policies
don't differentiate beyond a superficial level. Simultaneously, my good friend
whose family came here as barely literate refugees from Cambodia is lumped in
same category as an Asian kid whose dad is a surgeon.

It's as idiotic as it is well meaning. Just remember that life will always be
unfair, and that anger isn't an ideal way to handle it. You're going to
dominate no matter how much these elitist morons try to hold you down.

~~~
axaxs
It's very weird to me rich Nigerians can abuse the system, but poor South
Africans are rejected as 'African American' altogether due to the color of
their skin. Honestly, US race dealings are a cancer, I would move anywhere
else.

~~~
faceplanted
It's that American cultural aversion to ever admitting that race is tied to
history, they want to be seen to be doing something about racism but still do
it through a racist lens where what matters is whether you look black and not
what it actually means to have been discriminated against by American history
and policy.

~~~
MiroF
> not what it actually means to have been discriminated against by American
> history and policy.

There is a massive historical element to the position that most black
americans find themselves in now. But there is also ongoing racism, which I
don't see how you can tackle with only color blind policies.

------
xiaolingxiao
This is typical, Harvard did it for Jews back when they were discriminated
against. In order to discriminate "tastefully" (Ivies are all about "is it a
good look"), Harvard did a population study and learned that most Jews came
from upstate NY. Thus began Harvard's mission of broadening access to elite
education to the Midwest and Pacific West, where there are almost no Jews.

While in college, I heard a very fascinating story of how Harvard retaliated
when confronted with evidence. There is a linguistic professor at Penn who
went to Harvard and is Jewish. While at Harvard in the 70s, he suspected
discrimination and broke into the admissions office, unearthing documents
proving his case. Harvard responded by sending him to Vietnam, presumably to
die. Long story short, he lived to tell the tale. After the war, he went to
MIT and received a doctorate. He has all kinds of interesting stories about
'Nam too, but this Harvard story is really something else.

All Ivies/Stanford discriminate, they can fill the school 10x over with
Valedictorian/Chess champions if they want to. But they have to mindful of
their corporate customers as well, companies want a diverse menu of people.
Some studies have been done around how they discriminate now: presently the
tasteful instrument of discrimination is extra-curricular activities. You'd be
hard pressed to find too many Asian Americans doing Lax or Crew.

Remember, these are private institutions so strictly speaking, they could do
what ever they want (Disclosure: I am Asian). The bigger issue is that many
people _do_ have to go to one of these colleges for upward mobility. These
schools are like oligopolies that have taken captive the American dream.

~~~
Dumblydorr
Eh, I don't think these schools offer much upward mobility given their extreme
cost. Almost all their students should be better off financially going to
community college for 2 years then transferring to state school 2 years. These
colleges are more so about brand, it's an elite,an Ivy, a Porsche.

Is a Porsche 911 the car offering the best mobility? Surely its fast, but at
the end of the day, a thousand other cars get you to the finish line nearly as
quickly for a fraction of the investment.

If you save 200k on education costs and it grows reasonably in the stock
market, you'd need Harvard to make a diff of over a million dollars by age
45-50, as that's what your investment will do in the market.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Harvard does not cost $200k for families with income less than $100k. And even
if it does, the network you make at Harvard and the doors their brand opens is
well worth it in the long run.

There is a reason it’s so competitive, and it’s because it’s so competitive
that it’s so worth it. Same for MIT/Stanford/CalTech/etc.

------
renewiltord
In 1925, Jewish students at Harvard made up 28% of all attendees. President
Lawrence Lowell brought into existence policies to judge individuals on
character after failing to limit the number of Jewish attendees to his school.
Once these policies were put into action, Jewish attendance at his school
declined, eventually dropping below the 15% limit he was originally seeking to
put it into existence.

It wasn't that the Jewish people were being discriminated against. They were
just not as well-rounded, lacking in character and that savoir faire that came
so easily to anyone who was not Jewish. It may have been genetic or cultural.
I guess we'll never know. Hard to tell why they just couldn't pull it off.

~~~
bigdict
Letting admissions "judge individuals on character" is a way to selectively
reject applicants that do well on other, well-defined, metrics...

~~~
taneq
It's the "cultural fit" of academic institutions.

------
sudosteph
It's always so frustrating to see how elite colleges get away with such brazen
racial discrimination. Where are the alumni orgs speaking out about this?

I wonder how much of this is rooted in the desire to protect their own kid's
chances of admission vs loyalty and the desire to protect their academic
"brand". Either way, I don't forsee them fixing this any time soon,

Unfortunately, the Harvard brand seems ingrained in the national consciousness
as synonymous with top-notch. So just not applying in protest wouldn't serve
the students, especially when other schools do the same thing. I almost wish
that Asian Americans had their own equivalent of a prestigious HBCU like
Spelman or Howard. It would help siphon off some of the talent from Harvard
and the like and probably be an excellent institution in general.

~~~
alephnerd
Luckily we do. They’re called the University of California system. At least
California banned affirmative action in the 90s.

~~~
hhsuey
> UC may choose to advance goals like diversity and equal opportunity using a
> broad range of admissions that are not based on an individual’s race or
> gender. For example, holistic review in admissions considers income level,
> first-generation status, neighborhood circumstances, disadvantages overcome,
> low-performing secondary school attended, and the impact of an applicant’s
> background on academic achievement.

these things are highly correlated with race, however.

~~~
lawrenceyan
There's nothing wrong with recognizing that people in disadvantaged situations
face greater difficulties in overcoming systemic obstacles. Being able to
overcome these factors are actually generally a very strong signal in
determining potential of future success.

This is why affirmative action in of itself is not a wholly bad thing. It's
just that using ethnicity as the primary proxy is worse at generating a strong
signal as compared to

> income level, first-generation status, neighborhood circumstances,
> disadvantages overcome, low-performing secondary school attended, and the
> impact of an applicant’s background on academic achievement.

------
vikramkr
Here's what annoys me. This analysis is showing that race-based factors are
being factored into "personal ratings" and in how rec letters are being
interpreted etc. Just make there be an overall admission penalty for being
Asian and release the exact level of that barrier like they do for med school
admissions. You can see for med schools exactly what the average GPA and MCATs
needed are for white, black, Asian, Latino, etc. Stop trying to hide it in
obviously discriminatory ways like lowering people's personal ratings. Just
make an affirmative action penalty without perpetuating stereotypes about
Asian American applicants being math-loving robots with no other well-rounded
characteristics.

What annoys me even more frankly is that the burden for fixing centuries of
institutional racism and discrimination apparently needs to be born by
hardworking immigrants and children of immigrants, not the people that most
directly benefitted from generations of injust social structures. Legacies are
OK, and the percentage of students at ivy league schools from the top 1% can
be sky-high, so rich wealthy white students with connections and successful
parents don't have to sacrifice anything. Legacy admissions, a structure
explicitly created by many schools to keep out Jewish students[0], is OK
because "school spirit" and increased donations. People that benefit from
generations of inequity totally deserve their spots at these schools. However,
the hardworking student who's a child of immigrant parents, without
connections or networks, parents working in everything from laundromats to
tech jobs building generational wealth from the ground up? Students who
studied hard to get good grades and do everything the admissions officers
could want? No, they have to sacrifice their admissions to fix the legacy of
slavery. They have to pay the price and are discriminated against compared to
white folk. What a brilliant way to breed lateral violence between minorities
and create a system that continues to perpetuate classism and racism while
pretending that keeping out a deserving Asian student in favor of a rich white
student is helping a disadvantaged black student.

[0][https://www.businessinsider.com/legacy-admissions-
originally...](https://www.businessinsider.com/legacy-admissions-originally-
created-keep-jewish-students-out-elite-colleges-2013-10)

~~~
pcurve
This was one of the most depressing charts [https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-
content/uploads/medschool.pn...](https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-
content/uploads/medschool.png)

if you're asian, your chance of being accepted to medical school is 1/8th of
black in lower score zone. 1/8th.

You can have the highest GPA and MCAT. Your chance of getting in is still
lower than black with lowest GPA and MCAT.

I don't know if the stats are adjusted for schools applied, but still quite an
eye opening chart. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. It's bad.

~~~
vikramkr
The thing with med school discrimination is, I almost don't mind. There's no
blatant hypocrisy with legacy admissions. There is a genuine medical reason to
have more black doctors having to do with trust of medical professionals.
There are barriers faced by black applicants that are not faced to the same
extent by asian applicants. And, the med schools are very clear about what
those thresholds are and what that difference in rate is. I can understand
that there's a combination of people that look like XYZ wanting doctors that
look like them and that there's discrimination faced by XYZ that needs to be
factored in (XYZ being black, latino, native american, etc) making that
individual with a lower score a better future doctor. And, results in the long
run show that people admitted on affirmative action don't necessarily fare
worse. The med school process never seemed as unfair as the undergrad process,
even though the med school process is just as biased. And, we're not asked to
sacrifice a spot for some rich white kid who is only getting in because of
connections. Not in med school, where qualifications actually do matter and
there's no such thing as a gentleman's C for the legacies.

~~~
pcurve
if you wouldn't mind providing sources regarding long term performance, I'd
actually love to read it so that I can have more balanced view.

~~~
vikramkr
On the importance of having black doctors:
[https://www.nber.org/papers/w24787.pdf](https://www.nber.org/papers/w24787.pdf)

The long term equal performance thing is less clearly demonstrated, justice
scalia for example had a very strong belief otherwise. Here's a perspective on
it from the no difference side (i'm sure you'll have already read the other
versions of the argument): [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-
point/wp/2015/12/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-
point/wp/2015/12/10/scalia-was-wrong-students-admitted-through-affirmative-
action-thrive-at-elite-colleges/)

I'm more convinced by the need for black doctors than the performance argument
personally. If having a black doctor for a black community leads to better
health outcomes because people trust doctors that look like them (with good
reason, unfortunately, things like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment have not
been forgotten), then medical outcomes are medical outcomes. If their race, in
that case, makes them a better doctor for that community and that community
needs more doctors to address large health disparities, then that in and of
itself is a type of performance metric that's important. I don't like that
that's the case. I'm obviously biased since i'm asian and I'd very much like
higher admit rates. And I'm idealistic in thinking race shouldn't matter in
administering medicine. But that's not the world we live in yet. And it's not
just from the patient perspective, a different sort of cultural understanding
and empathy from the doctor also helps them practice, which their race or
gender can provide.

~~~
throwlaplace
>And it's not just from the patient perspective, a different sort of cultural
understanding and empathy from the doctor also helps them practice, which
their race or gender can provide.

this is the biggest factor i think personally (though i'm not a doctor) - i
imagine it's very hard to treat people effectively if you're not intimately
familiar with their circumstances.

------
_hardwaregeek
Asian American itself is an interesting (and quite arbitrary) category. It
perpetually fascinates me what is considered "Asian". East Asians are
undeniably lumped in. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who considers
Chinese/Korean/Japanese not Asian. SE Asia as well. South Asian (i.e. Indian,
Pakistani, Bangla, etc.) ditto.

But the moment you cross this devious little Bactrian border, you start
getting more and more pushback upon being labeled Asian. Talk to someone from
Georgia or Armenia, or even Israel (yes, Israel is in Asia), and they'll
quickly tell you that no, they're not Asian. Except...yeah you are.

One could make an argument that well, they're culturally European. I don't buy
that. If you're in Asia and then your culture is Asian culture by definition.
Of course nobody goes by that metric. So how do people determine Asianness? My
estimate is that they do it by otherness. I.e. Asian culture is that which is
not European or at this point American-European. A neat corollary to this is
that Asianness is associated with a lack of social capital. Hence the
insistence on not being Asian that you face in Central and Western Asia.

Which ties itself neatly into this problem. Asian-American as a category is
borne out of otherness. It's that which is not European or American. And it
makes sense that this group would face trouble in getting cultural, if not
financial acceptance.

What to do about this? Well one thing _not_ to do is to lash out at other
people who are struggling to gain social or financial capital. Black and
hispanic people are not our enemies here. A society that does not acknowledge
the damaging effects of racism in its institutions and in its culture will not
be a society that is beneficial to Asians.

I'm not sure what the solution is to college admissions. I don't think anybody
does. But I'm adamant that it should not be used as a tool to divide
minorities.

~~~
milkcircle
Excellent point. Asian Americans form an extraordinarily heterogeneous group,
spanning all areas of socio-economic status and access to opportunity. Race is
an imperfect proxy for what affirmative action attempts to do, which is to
normalize circumstantial variables to better assess an individual's potential
in the context of his or her environment. Several natural questions follow: 1)
what other applicant characteristics better map onto what affirmative action
tries to achieve? and 2) if we concede that self-reported race or perceived
race is not the right characteristic to adjust for, then how do we create a
truly race-blind application process?

Speaking as an Asian-American alumnus of Harvard, I will say that the
conversations I've heard in the community are mixed, even among Asians. Most
people are aware that discrimination against Asians is a real problem, though
they do not believe affirmative action as a principle is at fault; rather, its
implementation is imperfect and not nuanced enough. Adding to this debate is
the complex piece of how legacy students are treated by admissions, what role
money/wealth plays independently of affirmative action, and the overall
autonomy and goals of private institutions. And in the end, to what extent
should private and public institutions be held liable for how they achieve
their diversity goals, and how do you balance this with fairness toward
applicants?

~~~
bagacrap
Income level seems like a better proxy for overall circumstances than race.
Yet discriminating against wealthier customers would inflict damage the
university's bottom line.

------
rubatuga
So apparently Asians are supposed to be a model minority? But at the same time
clearly not "model" enough for Harvard admissions? I believe the limited and
idealized perspective of which Asians-Americans are viewed serves as a method
of placation, making it harder to detect discrimination and racism. I'm trying
to become aware of the benefits as well as drawbacks of this status, and I'm
not sure what Asian Americans think about this as well.

------
hackinthebochs
The assumption underlying these arguments against Harvard's admission is that
GPA/SAT scores represent merit and that any deviation from the distribution of
GPA/SAT scores in admittance is unjust discrimination. But this is missing
what is at stake for Harvard. Harvard wants to increase its prestige, and it
does so by having future CEOs, Senators, and Presidents go to Harvard. But the
distribution of potential leaders of society is not equal to the distribution
of GPA/test scores past a certain point.

But this isn't even mostly about leadership potential. It's about the social
environment that makes it so people with certain traits will more likely rise
to leadership positions in society. Power concentrates not by merit, but
through complex social and cultural factors, and race is very politically
relevant. Existing institutions and cultural factors will favor a white
Harvard graduate over an Asian graduate becoming a leader of some political
institution. So in service to Harvard's goal of having the next generation of
leaders in society go to Harvard, they are correct to bias their admissions
towards whites (and blacks, hispanics, etc).

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> " _But this is missing what is at stake for Harvard. Harvard wants to
> increase its prestige, and it does so by having future CEOs, Senators, and
> Presidents go to Harvard._ "

Well now, let's examine that.

-Do Asians not have renowned businesspeople and CEOs? The past and present CEOs of Toyota, Alibaba, Sony, Foxconn, Nintendo and other Asian corporate giants demonstrate that this is not true.

-Do Asians not have great heads of state and other statesmen? Naming any individual is likely to be contentious but it's clearly false say that Asia has had fewer great heads of state and politicians across its millennia of history than the West.

-Do Asian not have great minds, whether artistic, scientific, or otherwise? Judging by the STEM (e.g. TSMC, Sony) and artistic output (e.g anime) of Asia, no, that's self-evidently not the case as well.

Thus examined, there is no justification for the suggestion "future CEOs,
Senators, and Presidents" are less likely to be Asian and so the above
statement becomes apparent for what it is: an attempted justification for
racism.

If anyone is still not persuaded: if a poster had attempted to make the same
statement regarding _any_ other minority, gender, or religious group, ask
yourself what would have happened to that post?

~~~
hackinthebochs
To be clear, the prestige of Harvard derives from being the institution that
forces _American_ political and business leaders.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
So, you are suggesting that Asians' drive and capability in Asia would vanish
for Asian-Americans in the United States? That too is immediately disproven
based on the number of highly successful Asian-Americans in the US, such as
the CEOs of nVidia and AMD.

~~~
hackinthebochs
I'm not sure what your point is. But no, I'm saying that in aggregate, all
else being (mostly) equal, a white American has an easier time becoming a
Senator, CEO, or President _in America_. Whether Asians can be successful in
Asia (i.e. where cultural and political institutions are biased towards
Asians) is irrelevant to what happens in America.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> "a white American has an easier time becoming a Senator, CEO, or President"

Which is a statement of a racist nature. QED

~~~
hackinthebochs
I don't know what that means. But I'm pretty sure it's a factual statement. So
regardless, its relevant to the discussion.

------
hyperion2010
Discrimination against Asians during the admissions process has been a well
known fact inside the academy for over a decade. The fact that this had to go
to court is somewhat laughable. The other thread here about the Jews at
Harvard is a similar story that comes up in this context and many academics
simply nod knowingly and shake their head, probably because no one wants to
deal with the nightmare of admissions.

~~~
MiroF
> The fact that this had to go to court is somewhat laughable.

It sounds like you are unfamiliar with admission law, as negative
discrimination without quotas is explicitly legal as of now.

------
roenxi
It is a pity nobody knows how to have a civil and thoughtful public debate on
these topics. The Asian experience throws a large number of spanners into what
I assume is the common narrative around race.

In particular, that the people bringing in affirmative action policy are
acting on some sort of evidence. It is difficult to sustain the idea that pre-
university racism was the most important variable when the Asians are such
intellectual dynamos despite facing pretty stiff racial headwinds.

~~~
magicsmoke
The play devil's advocate, affirmative action isn't supposed to just
compensate for what an individual's upbringing was before college, but the
multigenerational racial discrimination that led to his community and family
not being able to prepare him for college. The Asian American historical
experience was very different from the Black American historical experience.
Most Asian Americans today are descendants of well trained technical
immigrants post 1950s. The US immigration process acted like a filter that
selected for immigrants that were already above average in their respective
societies. Asian Americans don't just outperform other minorities in the US,
they likely outperform their compatriots back in Asia due to this filter.
Black Americans, on the other hand, weren't exactly chosen to immigrate to the
US because of their technical skills. They were forced to migrate due to the
legacy of slavery. An Asian and a Black student clearly do not have the same
family or historical background. Even within the Asian American community, you
see differences in achievement between descendants of economic migrants and
descendants of refugees. Indian and Korean Americans do much better than
Vietnamese or Hmong.

~~~
turtlecloud
Great. Now give Asian Americans affirmative action in the NBA.

Any mental gymnastics used to support affirmative action in business or
schooling should also apply to sports. If I hear someone complaining about
lack of representation of X in certain field I will gladly point at NBA and
Asian Americans ask them out that.

~~~
dbbljack
why do you think schools and sports entertainment need the same representation
rules?

~~~
turtlecloud
In general, Americans can name more professional sports stars than politicians

Pro Sports is not just entertainment. It serves a psychological purpose for
the masses.

~~~
dbbljack
I'm not sure if any of that is true or if any of it leads logically to a need
for affirmative action in the ranks of the entertainers.

------
zarkov99
The open discrimination and outright racism Asian Americans are subject to in
Academia, in Hollywood is maybe the hallmark of the age of hypocrisy and
bullshit we live in. Against all odds, AA have succeeded and contributed
immensely to American Society, and despite that, perhaps because of that, they
are the one group towards institutionalized, open racism is just fine.

~~~
frog_squid
What I find really funny is that the current American far left, who are very
vocal about any kind of racial inequality towards Blacks and Latinos, are the
ones most vocal in their support for affirmative action.

They don't see it as racist at all, but actually they believe they're
supporting the fair and moral choice and patting themselves on the back for
being such virtuous people. They only care about the end goal, which is equity
not equality, and it's clear that any method used to get there is fine by
them.

It's absolutely sickening the delusion and hypocrisy these people have. Their
principles are not set in stone, like holding a set of ideas that must be
applied similarly across differing situations, but rather, their supposed
principles, like tools, are selectively used or ignored for particular
situations that they stand to benefit or lose from.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
This is the usual BS argument, voiced to make discrimination OK again. Seems
obvious you have to look at race, to work to level inequalities in race. But
the kneejerk response is to say "Hey that's just more racism!"

They are different in kind. One (racism) works to systematically suppress one
segment of the population. The other, taking action, works to correct this
effect. Both operate on racial lines, but that's where the similarity ends.

You have a car that pulls slightly to the left; so you steer a little to the
right to correct. Sure, we'd all like a car that steers straight. But it pulls
to the left, what you gonna do?

{I know the previous comment was probably some robotic troll, and I should
ignore it. But that lame justification for racism gets my dander up.}

~~~
zarkov99
No, it only seems obvious if you assume that all racial groups should have
outcomes that _exactly_ mirror their demographics with racism being the only
possible explanation as to why this has never been the case anywhere for
anything. The solution is just as imbecilic as the diagnosis: we will solve
bad racism through good racism until we get exactly the proportions we find
equitable. Meanwhile we teach kids that the color of their skins is more
important than the content of their brains when it comes to getting the
education they want. What could go wrong?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Strawman. Helping balance the scales isn't insisting all outcomes are exactly
anything. Just that they aren't horribly unbalanced.

To the one on top, fairness seems to be oppression. Clearly, that is happening
here.

------
danielscrubs
Can someone explain to me why affirmative action is necessary? Why not just
send in your GPA and let a computer check which school you can go to based on
your preference? Why resort to low-key racism?

Low-income junior high-schools of course needs more money from the government
than the high-income schools to combat equality issues. Because let's face it,
it's the low-income people that struggle and always will, money IS power.

~~~
balls187
> Why not just send in your GPA and let a computer check which school you can
> go to based on your preference? Why resort to low-key racism?

College admissions were based that way. And it disproportionately benefited
white students, and affirmative action policies were implemented to combat
that.

Think of Affirmative Action similar to weighted GPA's.

College Admissions attempted to take a population and normalize them to a pair
of datapoints (GPA/SAT/ACT). Affirmative action policies attempted to weigh
lower scores higher, factoring in historical biases.

A (white) friend explained it like this: Think of playing a game of monopoly
and if you're white you start with 2x the money, and given 1/4 of the
properties on the board. If you're black, you start with 1/2 the money, and
the all prices are doubled. How likely is it for a black person to win?

~~~
danielscrubs
So based on skincolor you can tell if I started with 2x the money? You can
tell whether he is a millionaire or not? If he lived in a safe area or not?
You judge someone based on skincolor, you can back it up with numbers sure,
but you didn't judge based on who he is.

Telling people that if only they had a different skincolor that maybe they
would have made it. Making the focus on something you cant change is just
poison.

If you fix the economic divide violence goes down, substance abuse go down,
happiness goes up, and the major beneficiaries are minorities and the ones
that will be hit the hardest are the majority group, no racism necessary.

~~~
balls187
> So based on skincolor you can tell if I started with 2x the money? You can
> tell whether he is a millionaire or not? If he lived in a safe area or not?
> You judge someone based on skincolor, you can back it up with numbers sure,
> but you didn't judge based on who he is.

The data on US household median income by race is well published data, and
shows Black household income lags behind white household income. So yes, while
I cannot tell exactly your financial situation, I can make an educated guess
with some degree of certainty that if you are white, you were more likely to
grew up in a household with higher income.

Educational attainment is also correlated to race as well. For whites 25 and
older, 65% have had some form of college, compared to 55% blacks.

And is ONLY with race information. Add a zipcode, that certainty increases.

People are upset with Affirmative Action, because it is picking winners based
on race. However those same people fail to recognize factors in their lives
that have effectively picked them as winners. That is what society is
referring to when they speak of "privileged."

> If you fix the economic divide violence goes down, substance abuse go down,
> happiness goes up, and the major beneficiaries are minorities and the ones
> that will be hit the hardest are the majority group, no racism necessary.

I think you've made my point--the economic divide correlates with race. You
cannot fix the divide without first acknowledging that racism largely is
responsible for it, and continues to further it.

~~~
frog_squid
Yeah, but the system is gamed and a huge proportion of affirmative action
admits don't actually fall in the wealth category that the majority of the
people in that minority group would, i.e. most affirmative action admits come
from very wealthy families. The data shows this if you search online. In my
Ivy League college, several of the Latino students living in my Freshman house
were actually bi-racial with white dads and came from upper middle class,
well-educated households.

~~~
MiroF
> most affirmative action admits come from very wealthy families

You can link a source here, as I'm skeptical that this is actually true. That
said, many minority students at elite institutions were already attending
elite high schools on scholarship - so there is a kernel of truth there.

~~~
frog_squid
Yes, in Thomas Sowell's Affirmative Action Around the World

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_Action_Around_the_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_Action_Around_the_World)

"They tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group
(e.g. black millionaires), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among
the non-preferred groups (e.g. poor whites)"

~~~
MiroF
Thomas Sowell is far from an objective observer here. If this is a true claim,
then I'd like to see a stat thrown out.

If we're just comparing anecdotes, as someone who attended one of these
"elite" universities, this didn't seem to be the case at all.

------
tayistay
I'm all for Asian Americans getting fair treatment. More broadly than this
study, what bothers me about this story, is that by focusing so much on
Harvard, it reinforces the hierarchy of educational institutions that we have.
It does not challenge the underlying rot, which is the notion of prestige and
status conferred to schools. We could all do without the snob-factor of our
educational hierarchy. Alumni networking is a gross non-meritocratic thing as
well.

Harvard, in particular, is a despicable place. Just now, during this shutdown,
they've laid off some of their most vulnerable staff (food service workers,
etc) to save money, when they have a $40bn endowment. Anyone with a sense of
what is right should not apply there. Alumni should be ashamed.

~~~
adchari
I fully support this, Harvard has definitely committed some questionable acts
recently. However, Ivy League schools in general are well known for their
prestige, and they usually have a rather high quality of education in most
subjects. Why should any one group of applicants be excluded from seeking out
that opportunity?

The same systems are in place at most private schools; all of them have
affirmative action, holistic review, and control who gets in with their final
say. Even public universities have this issue, look at gender-based admissions
in CS for example.

~~~
tayistay
> Why should any one group of applicants be excluded from seeking out that
> opportunity?

They shouldn't. If I seemed to imply that above, then I didn't articulate my
point well.

Going to Harvard, etc. is not about getting the best education (public schools
like the University of California system are great), it's about acquiring
prestige. It's about the connections and networking to ascend to the highest
levels of society. The flaw being that such networking is important, as
opposed to more meaningful forms of achievement.

------
newfeatureok
These types of studies always miss the point - the difference in entry input
(SAT, GPA, class rank) do not necessary result in a proportional difference in
output (reputation in a variety of fields).

As an example, if you assume everyone who applies at Harvard would be equally
successful, you would want those who would have the most broad range of
outcomes to boost your schools reputation. In other words, with a class size
of 100 you would not want 100 famous scientists - you'd want famous
scientists, politicians, writers, etc.

So as a result you'd have to control for perceived interests among the
committee that reviews applications.

Nevertheless, discrimination is definitely in poor taste.

------
gvd
One thing gets overlooked here and it's America's sickening love with elite
universities (and other elite institutions). Put some effort in raising the
baseline.

------
Dumblydorr
I have a similar concern for med school applications. There are charts that
clearly show African American and latino undergrads need much lower GPAs and
MCAT scores to get into medical school than white and asian students. The data
is telling us there is a premium placed on being a minority.

This could be due to needing more minority doctors in minority communities, to
affirmative action, or to students' choices about where to apply. There is
also a strong argument that we're in need of Spanish speaking doctors,
therefore someone with that skill should be advantaged.

In the end, I think the best potential doctors should be chosen, and political
machinations should stay out of selecting our nation's future professionals.

~~~
wan23
[https://hbr.org/2018/08/research-having-a-black-doctor-
led-b...](https://hbr.org/2018/08/research-having-a-black-doctor-led-black-
men-to-receive-more-effective-care)

It's a well-documented phenomenon that the background of providers has an
effect on the care given. If "best potential doctors" means has the best
effects on the health of Americans, then it is clearly important that this be
taken into account. For an organization like the AMA in particular, if they
want to retain their (unjustified) monopoly on providing healthcare they
should want to make sure that no politically active group can point to
admissions policies that create worse health outcomes for that group.

------
enaaem
I’m an Asian immigrant and my mother always told me that I have to work 10
times as hard because of your black hair and yellow skin.

------
mantap
By "Asian American" do they mean Americans of Chinese descent or what? Does it
include Filipinos? Thai? Afghans? It is an odd term.

~~~
wahern
There are two predominate meanings: the Census Bureau definition includes the
Indian subcontinent along with East and Southeast Asia. The vernacular
excludes the Indian subcontinent, though perhaps less so among the Indian
community.

Afghanistan would not be included in either definition. Someone of Afghanistan
ancestry (I'm purposefully avoiding distinguishing the various ethnicities in
Afghanistan) would be classified as either Middle Eastern or Caucasian under
the census definition as well as in the vernacular.

~~~
mantap
Right but what I'm getting at is that when people talk about "Asian Americans"
in the context of college admissions, it seems like a coded way of talking
about people of Chinese descent and not e.g. Filipinos.

~~~
sumedh
Probably because majority of the applicants would be Chinese not Filipino.

------
petilon
It is weird how racial diversity is given so much higher weight than other
forms of diversity.

We are different in economic and social class, religion, politics,
urban/rural, interest in sports, interest in music, gender, sexual
orientation, ethnicity and race.

And yet, when we talk about diversity race trumps all other forms of
diversity. It is the most visible (other than gender) form of diversity. All
other forms of diversity requires getting to know the person.

When it comes to discrimination, again, the most visible form of difference is
the most common basis for discrimination.

~~~
kylebenzle
Maybe the whole thing makes no sense and the apparatus is just in place to
make the loudest minorities feel like they are being treated "fairly".

------
tomohawk
This sounds similar to how many large orgs try to put in place 'fair'
promotion practices.

It turns out that the easiest, and probably fairest, is to just eliminate the
candidates that obviously do not make the cut, and then have a lottery of the
remaining candidates.

I recall going to a very good state engineering school. Because it was a state
school, it had to accept a certain number of people from each school district
in the state. It was not a policy that worked out well for the students who
were from weak districts. They flunked out or transferred to less rigorous
programs. They were obviously smart, but completely unprepared. They would
have been much better off going to a community college and getting prepared,
then transferring in.

------
BurningFrog
And yet, in today's America, a white man only makes $0.89 for each $1.00 an
Asian man makes.

~~~
sumedh
How much does a black man make?

------
mydongle
Like one greyed out poster said, no one cares - _about Asian Americans in the
U.S_. There is likely no other minority group where if something like this
were occuring against them, that it would just be accepted. Hell, it wouldn't
even be up for debate. Yet with Asians, here we are. No one being fired or
cancelled, no action being taken, no one going to bat for Asians in this
country like they would've if it were an African American, Mexican, or other
minority group.

~~~
Reedx
It seems like crab mentality at work. Pulling down those that succeed the
most.

Asian Americans are top performers, both in academics and income:

[https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat...](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf)

~~~
mydongle
It's really not just academia where this occurs. In Hollywood and in everyday
life, it seems to be acceptable for people to make fun of/mock Asian cultures,
whereas they wouldn't (or they would think twice about it) do the same with
most other minorities. I think the problem is that there's no repercussions to
shit talking and stereotyping people who generally avoid trouble. What will it
take for people to respect Asian Americans the same way that other minorities
are respected?

~~~
whatshisface
I would argue that "don't make fun of Asian culture" would make being around
it awkward and make people feel like they were walking on eggshells.
Everything is lambasted in media from politics to food culture, and it's
normal for familiar things to be made fun of. The more familiar they are, in
fact, the broader the appeal there is in making fun of them. I might suggest
that introducing "endangered species status" to any culture that doesn't have
it would be a step away from familiarity and towards alienation.

~~~
mydongle
Asian people are already alienated. Getting to the position where other
minorities are would be a step closer to acceptance in American society, no?

~~~
whatshisface
I think it's more of a situation where group A has problems x y and z, and
group B has problems f g and h, and you're saying "boy I sure wish group B
could get in on some of that sweet x y and z."

~~~
mydongle
We are not better off as a group that's socially acceptable to disrespect and
hate on in American society. There is nothing to be proud of for that. Why
can't Asian Americans ask for the same exact treatment American society gives
to other minorities? Why do you talk of that treatment as a negative thing?
It's good that people can't freely say the N word when speaking of African
Americans. Do you disagree?

~~~
whatshisface
But nobody wants to be treated like a minority, in any society you want to be
treated normally.

------
chvid
I have a feeling that this is only going to accelerate after COVID19.

------
AzzieElbab
Don't take it personally, it is not about race or personalities. It is about
Harvard officials wanting to have a final say on who gets in. In other words,
it is about corruption

------
known
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus_clausus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus_clausus)
in USA since 1918

------
aspenmayer
I would like to see in admissions systems some kind of quantification and
attestation of the applicants’ capabilities and also their shortcomings.
Balance this with the sum total of all educational investment individually by
their parents/teachers/schools, and also the collective investment in their
peers and across all schools. It’s one thing to know someone is a good
applicant. But if we argue that this is a meritocratic system that also
accounts for inequality of opportunity, we should do more to articulate what
it means to be a good student.

What does it mean to be a good student versus a potentially good student? How
do you tell the difference between a good student with test anxiety, an
average student who tests well, and a below average student who has been
tutored to compensate for their lack of discernment? How do you compare a good
student in a severely disadvantaged intellectual and/or economic environment
with a student who rates the same on educational attainment as the prior
student, but lacks meaningful barriers to learning?

Differences and advantages in stimuli and investment in intellectual activity
exist in continuum that isn’t just what happens at school or at home but also
what happens in the hands and minds of students. It also touches on funding of
public schools, and how that funding is levied mainly by local municipal and
county property taxes with federal and state contributions. This reliance on
local tax base creates intellectual deserts in many of the same places you
find food deserts. For a fair system to be possible, we have to have a
conversation about goals in admissions process and what is fair and what is
unfair in the current system to inform us about what a fairer system might
look like.

If college admissions is a measure of success, the measure should not be the
target and be gamed by those with power and influence to do so. There must be
some accounting for this disparity in opportunity for the student and their
representatives to game the system. It’s fine to have a legacy system but I
see it as opening the door to this kind of anti-meritocratic behavior by
students, their families, their schools and counselors, and especially by the
colleges and universities they apply to.

In order to know how good an individual is we need to know both how big a fish
they are, and how big the pond is. But we can’t stop there. We need to know
how much food they ate and how much energy they expended to get it. Would they
have done better in a different pond? Possibly. Should they have done better
considering how much opportunity they and their peers had? Also a question we
should be able to answer. We should have better tools to know how to better
teach and also to better learn.

~~~
jmeister
This is all too complicated. Harvard has a simple objective function: To
maximize the future positive “impact” on society its alumni have, and the
resulting prestige reflected on their alma mater.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22975148](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22975148)

~~~
aspenmayer
Title IX and the 2019 college admissions bribery scandal demonstrate that the
government has authority to determine what form the admissions process is
allowed to take, and intervene if necessary to ensure whatever process in
place is fair in a legal sense. My comment was an exploration of the idea of
fairness in admissions and not a case study of any institution’s individual
admissions process.

------
ralusek
Asians, particularly Asian men, have the most active obstacles that manifest
on _basis of their race_ than any other minority group in the US. If you are
an individual given a situation, all things else considered equal
(attractiveness, intelligence, parenting, culture, neighborhood, familial
wealth, etc), being Asian will give you a harder time than any other
racial/ethnic characteristic in terms of pursuing a good life. That doesn't
mean that Asians as a collective will net worse results than black people as a
collective, because collectively, parenting, culture, neighborhoods, familial
wealth, etc, are not at all comparable between those groups. But if you are
the same exact individual with the same exact circumstances, and you could
choose to be black or Asian, you would be better off choosing to be black.

You want to get into a good school? Diversity programs and affirmative action,
above board, use the basis of your race to actively advantage you in your
admittance if you are black, and do the exact opposite if you are Asian.
Quotas for racial makeups almost always necessarily and uniquely disadvantage
Asians. Because of being so overrepresented in achievements relative to their
makeup of the population, any quota that goes off of anything other than their
meritorious accomplishments necessarily puts an arbitrary scarcity on
available opportunities for them.

You want to get a good job? Sure, you might find certain employers in
particular regions that may be discriminatory on the basis of race to black
individuals. But large, highly desirable companies nearly unilaterally have
diversity hiring practices that likewise greatly advantage black individuals
relative to those who would otherwise hold comparable characteristics to
individuals from other populations. YouTube famously had reports from their
hiring department that a hold was issued on the hiring of white and Asian
individuals for the remainder of some time period in order to ensure that
diversity quotas were satisfied. Being Asian in a "sea of hyper-qualified
Asian applicants" _is_ a distinct disadvantage, and the degree of competence
needed to stand out from a group that is already associated with high
achievement is uniquely unfair.

What about dating? I have worked in this space. Every dating app shows the
same thing: Asian men and black women are the least desirable groups for
getting responses or being sought after, by quite a bit. I have worked in this
space, and what is admittedly anecdotal, I have heard "I'm just not attracted
to Asian guys," on many occasions. There doesn't seem to be any taboo in this
particular area, it doesn't seem to imply closed-mindedness. I have _never_,
_ever_, heard somebody say "I'm just not attracted to black guys," in my
personal or professional life. I believe that this would be met with a great
deal of social pushback. There seems to be a willingness for people to say
things about Asians that is just not felt in other ethnic groups, and it
possibly stems from this idea that it's safe to be "punching up."

Lastly I just think there is a general cultural obsession with racial
injustices which completely casts Asians aside due to their collective
competencies. Think of all of the hullabaloo regarding the fact that there
isn't enough black representation in the Academy Awards, regardless of (last I
checked) the makeup of Oscars in the last few decades has been about 10%
awarded to black individuals, which is about what their 13% of the population
in the US would lead you to expect. Asian actors? Something on the order of 4.
Nobody cares.

I'm not Asian. I hate racial politics, but I just find it particularly absurd
that Asians are ostensibly cast aside in this game when they strike me as
having the most to complain about. Most other cases of supposed injustice stem
from people comparing the outcomes of two racial populations, and subsequently
stipulating that the differences must be due to racism. For the examples I've
stated, I'm talking about things that actually net different outcomes for
individuals on the basis of their race.

~~~
ceilingcorner
> Asians, particularly Asian men, have the most active obstacles that manifest
> on _basis of their race_ than any other minority group in the US

Sorry, but this is patently absurd. African-Americans have faced (and continue
to face) an order of magnitude more difficulty and lack of opportunity than
Asian-Americans. The statistics of a dating app or the number of Oscar winners
are in no way comparable to centuries of slavery and legal discrimination.

~~~
tathougies
Asians were enslaved to build the West though. That is just true. While
'paid', they were not entitled to full legal rights and were held in
conditions akin to slavery. We talk about reparations for african americans
despite not being able to properly track who is an ancestor of whom. On the
other hand, we know full well which Japanese were held in concentration camps
by America, and some are even alive today, and they receive nowhere near a
proper compensation.

~~~
ceilingcorner
I have a hard time believing that any reasonable person would think that the
poor treatment of Chinese laborers (which was exceptionally discriminatory) or
the confiscation of Japanese property (a crime, no doubt) compares to being
kidnapped, transported across the ocean, and enslaved as property for hundreds
of years.

~~~
ckcheng
I don't want to argue. I read what you wrote and genuinely wondered about the
working conditions of Chinese laborers in the distant past in the USA.

> 8,000 Chinese focused on building the tunnels while another 3,000 laid track
> ... The Chinese had seen a pay increase from $31 to $35 per month by Spring
> 1867, but it fell short of the $40 monthly salaries whites were pulling in
> ... They were also toiling longer hours, often under dangerous conditions,
> whipped or restrained if they left to seek employment elsewhere. And unlike
> whites, the Chinese had to foot the bill for their lodging, food, and tools

> When the strike went down ... "They went to their camp and they sat" ...
> Crocker, meanwhile, took the step of cutting off all food and supplies to
> the Chinese laborers, hoping that starvation would force them back to work.

> It did.

( [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/150-years-ago-
chi...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/150-years-ago-chinese-
railroad-workers-staged-era-s-largest-n774901) )

I'm not making a comparison between groups. I just think being whipped,
restrained, and starved would probably rise above "poor treatment ... which
was exceptionally discriminatory" as a description for any reasonable person.

> Denis Kearney, an Irish immigrant ... Responding to high unemployment and a
> nationwide railroad strike, Kearney in 1877 founded the Workingmen’s Party
> of California ... the party’s anti-Chinese views were rooted in racism and
> revulsion at the newcomers’ unfamiliar customs.

> "A bloated aristocracy has sent to China ... for a cheap working slave,"
> Kearney proclaimed in 1878. "It rakes the slums of Asia to find the meanest
> slave on earth - the Chinese coolie - and imports him here to meet the free
> American in the labor market

> "These cheap slaves fill every place. Their dress is scant and cheap. Their
> food is rice from China. They hedge twenty in a room, ten by ten. They are
> whipped curs, abject in docility, mean, contemptible and obedient in all
> things."

> The Workingmen’s Party quickly became a force in California and national
> politics, exerting pressure on Congress and President Chester A. Arthur to
> act.

> In early 1882, Congress overwhelmingly approved the Chinese Exclusion Act

(
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/03...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/03/cheap-
slaves-trump-immigration-and-the-ugly-history-of-the-chinese-exclusion-act/) )

Apparently some people at that time thought of the Chinese laborers as "cheap
working slave", "the meanest slave on earth", who lived "twenty in a room",
"are whipped", etc.

This is just historical context. I know other groups had it terribly as
well... I'm not making comparisons.

~~~
ceilingcorner
I’m not really sure what objective you’re after. Obviously Chinese workers
were treated badly. _All_ working class workers were treated badly, including
‘white’ people like the Irish or Polish. I already said this, so stop stoking
this conversation for absolutely zero reason.

The point is that being an abused lower class worker is not the same thing as
being an actual piece of property, which is what black slaves were. This is
not even remotely controversial among historians.

~~~
tathougies
> I’m not really sure what objective you’re after. Obviously Chinese workers
> were treated badly. All working class workers were treated badly, including
> ‘white’ people like the Irish or Polish. I already said this, so stop
> stoking this conversation for absolutely zero reason.

The experience of the Chinese was nowhere near that of a poor Irish or Polish
worker. That is a blatant rewriting of history.

------
MaxBarraclough
Am I right in thinking this paper was written by 3 academics, but has not been
peer-reviewed?

------
tathougies
Frankly, a degree from Harvard is not that prestigious anymore, due to these
kinds of shenanigans. A degree from most any top-notch west coast school is
likely to be met with more respect not only in industry but also to the
populace at large.

~~~
freepor
This is... wishful thinking.

~~~
alibaba_x
Harvard’s reputation is not set in stone. Once Affirmative Action and athletic
scholarship grads start to enter the workforce en masse the Harvard brand will
gradually erode.

~~~
wyclif
It's already diluting their brand. Harvard has had a lot of bad publicity in
the past few years and it's starting to erode their cachet.

------
slowdog
Part of the problem is Asians don’t vote as a block, so who will protect them?
If for a group of people, votes are split, who will look out for their needs?

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Demanding that people sort themselves into race-exclusive voting blocks
doesn't seem like an effective way to fight racism.

~~~
traderjane
So should black people stop organizing along lines of race, because that
doesn't seem like an effective way to fight racism? That just means less black
representation.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Yes. We shouldn't strap on blinders and ignore race, of course. But the
activists who go around encouraging people to identify as Black first and
individuals second, I think are toxic and ineffective.

------
choonway
So what's stopping Asian-Americans from setting up their own university?

~~~
renewiltord
They have the California Republic - fair, unbiased, prosperous. California
isn't the massive powerhouse it is (a bigger economy than half of American
states combined) by accident. The free society has a competitive advantage.

And obviously it's hard to set up a university these days, and no one is going
to set up a single race university. I doubt anyone actually wants an Asian-
only university, just for there to be sufficient race-blind ones.

------
nradov
Since race is a social construct with no solid scientific definition, college
applicants should feel free to select whichever checkbox gains them the
greatest advantage. It isn't cheating. Or if they're uncomfortable with that,
just leave it blank.

~~~
augustt
Not that useful when they see your name (and face usually).

~~~
keanzu
Elizabeth Warren would disagree.

------
WholeLottaTrash
This is very clearly a throwaway. I found my experience as someone born in
Asia who moved to the United States at a young age terrible, with regards to
college admissions. We lived in a 1 bedroom apartment when we moved here, and
didn't really advance more. I took quite literally every AP offered at school
and did well, played a Varsity sport, and got a perfect 2400 out of 2400 on
the SAT, in addition to various extracurriculars like a well-developed
photography portfolio and robotics. I also happened to go to a very good
public high school because my parents focused on my education instead of
buying a house where they could afford one. I was rejected from every school I
applied to, from the most prestigious to even "lowly" and "safe" Cal States,
except for one. My sister, several years younger than me, with lesser metrics,
ended up at a top 5 school with nearly a full ride in scholarships earned. I
don't think it was from a lack of a good essay too, because I won several
writing awards as a kid, and wrote many of my friend's college essays too, and
they all got in.

I feel like it set me back tremendously in my life in the things that I value.
There's a lot of bitterness here, but even more confusion.

Not really sure what else to say.

~~~
misterbwong
Honestly, I find this _very_ difficult to believe-it almost sounds like you've
left something out. As with a lot of these types of stories on the internet,
it feels like something else is amiss.

The SAT score alone puts you in a pretty small group of people (< 600 people
scored 2400 out of 1-2 MILLION SAT takers in 2014, according to some light
googling). This combined with uncommon extracurriculars and a "good essay"
would easily land you in any cal state.

If you're saying that these are your qualifications, with no caveats, then
literally 95%+ of the Asian males in California would get rejected from all
but the "lowliest" schools.

~~~
unishark
Well the GPA/ranking was left out (which could have guaranteed admission to a
UC if it was in the top 9 percent or whatever). Though it's hard to imagine it
being that bad if the person is so great at test taking.

Either way though, yes I am also pretty skeptical of this story because of the
Cal State part. At that tier a top student should get a full scholarship. I
guess Cal Poly is pretty selective, but still their average SAT score is
pretty low. It's probably more about applicants self-selecting for UC's
instead of Cal States.

------
beaunative
Why are Asian forced to achieve better grades and achivements? Why are Blacks
statistically disadvantagous in college admission, but not in metrics?

There is a very simple statistical answer to this, that blacks come to the US
as labor force are of far larger quantity than asians, forced or not. Let's
assume it to be 50x vs. 1x

But for the new immigrants, the percentage is in the same magnitude, as the US
implemented quota-based immigration system for countries.

Let's say its 4x vs. 4x, and added together, it's 54x vs. 5x

Why do Asians Americans in general have better socio-economical status?
Because the US simply doesn't allow new immigrants with low socio-economical
status to become American citizens. And for those Asian Americans who's in the
lower half and in much worse shape because their socio-economical status,
their difficulties are destined to be worsened by affirmative action rather
than alleviated.

Affirmative actions benefits the top percentiles of racial groups, rarely the
lower percentiles. Let's say the affirmative action benefits the top ten
percents. For African American, it's 5.4x which is more than the 4x who are
new immigrants. For Asian American, it's 0.5x, which is less than one eighth
who are new immigrants. New immigrants always come from better half of the
socio-economical status.

That is, with affirmative action, if your ancestors are labour force came to
the US forced or not, your life would be much harder as a Asian American than
as a African American. Because as an Asian American, you are competing mostly
with new immigrants who are top talents/money. And fortunately as African
Americans, you are competing with people with largely similar socio-economical
status.

------
rurabe
I'm pretty shocked by the lack of empathy here.

Do any of these people railing against affirmative action really think that
Native/African/Hispanic Americans should be locked in a self-reinforcing cycle
of declining educational and economic outcomes?

Maybe going to your second choice school is an ok tradeoff for trying to raise
and entire segment of society from relative poverty and discrimination.

* Am Asian, got rejected by Stanford and Harvard

~~~
AuryGlenz
Then it should be based on poverty, not race. The people that didn’t deserve
to get in to those top tier schools can make just as much money after
graduating from a “lesser” school.

~~~
freepor
I live in a $3 million house and would be COMPLETELY OK with my kids being
rejected from their dream schools for poverty-linked affirmative action. They
have a vastly easier path to academic achievement, and if they got 90 points
on a test and a poor kid got 80 points, that other kid just plain old
outperformed them.

You'll find a lot of us out there who are vehemently opposed to race-based
affirmative action but would enthusiastically support wealth/class-based
affirmative action.

~~~
alibaba_x
The fact that you would be willing to sacrifice your children’s future for
“the Greater Good” is deeply troubling to me. I would want the best for my
kids even at the expense of social justice and the common good.

~~~
freepor
I don’t think making my children compete fairly with others is sacrificing
their future, quite the opposite. If they will ever achieve anything
meaningful they’ll need to build their own engine instead of just riding on
the skis that I’ve greased underneath them.

------
sfj
The problem is that Asians don't have a story of discrimination. Blacks have
slavery, Jews have the holocaust, Native Americans have their land being taken
from them, and Latinos have being raised in a third world country and fled to
America on foot. These are simple, visual stories as to why they were all
discriminated against.

But Asians, along with Indians are mostly relatively wealthy immigrants that
came here legally. There is no story of their collective hardships, so no
heart strings are pulled, so no one cares.

If there was a movie about discrimination and hardship, the Asians would be
cut out of it, being their story was too boring and not dramatic enough. That
is the real reason.

~~~
rczhang
Asian discrimination in the US includes the Chinese Exclusion Act, the 1917
Immigration Act, bans on the ownership of property (leading to the development
of Chinatown ghettos), and internment camps.

Furthermore, many Asian immigrant groups came to the US quite poor, such as
early Chinese, and in more modern times, Vietnamese.

I think this comment speaks more to personal ignorance than the actual truth
of the matter.

~~~
sfj
> Asian discrimination in the US includes the Chinese Exclusion Act, the 1917
> Immigration Act, bans on the ownership of property (leading to the
> development of Chinatown ghettos), and internment camps.

> Furthermore, many Asian immigrant groups came to the US quite poor, such as
> early Chinese, and in more modern times, Vietnamese.

Compared to slavery, the holocaust, having your land stolen away from you, and
a fleeing refuge from war and poverty, these are small potatoes.

> I think this comment speaks more to personal ignorance than the actual truth
> of the matter.

I never said that Asians didn't have their own hardships, and in general, I
don't think it's fair to lump people in categories such as race or sex and say
your group of people suffered in such a way, therefore you personally are more
deserving than others. What I'm saying is there lacks a simple visual story
for Asians of suffering and this has a societal psychological effect on how
they are being treated.

Don't confuse what I'm saying as what should be vs what is. I don't pay much
attention to what should be, because as an individual I can have little
effect. I do like to understand what is and why it is (and like to comment
about my theories about it)

~~~
rczhang
> Compared to slavery, the holocaust, having your land stolen away from you,
> and a fleeing refuge from war and poverty, these are small potatoes.

Fleeing refuge from war and poverty are literally the circumstances from which
Chinese have arrived in the US for centuries (not to mention the more obvious
groups like Vietnamese and Cambodian). Modern China has only been wealthy for
a very short time, shorter than affirmative action policies in the US (I'm not
trying to argue for or against AA, just want to point out the timeline).

Look, I'm not going to say Chinese suffered more during their great famine
than Jews in the Holocaust. But I'm also not going to say the opposite.
Everybody has suffered here, enough so that these events are burned into the
consciousness of both groups. If you can only see the visual story of one of
these, it's not because the other one doesn't exist, it's because you haven't
sought it out.

~~~
sfj
You still don't get it, I'm not talking about myself, just how the public
reacts. I don't think preferential treatment based on skin color is ever a
good idea.

------
cercatrova
This hurts Asian Americans in the short term but increases the equity of
admission and also access to resources for other minorities in the long term.
The discrimination serves a purpose other than just racial discrimination, as
if there were a school of just Asian Americans, who on average already do
well, it is not useful for other minorities to ascend as well. Before anyone
says that admissions should be completely fair, that could work if everyone
has the same access to money and education, but it has been shown that this is
not true, so I understand why such discrimination against Asian Americans
towards other racial minorities happens. The goal should be equity first and
foremost and anything else second.

~~~
miscPerson
You’re viewing people as defined by their membership in a race, which is a
deeply racist worldview.

Let’s judge people on the content of their character and not color of their
skin:

Why should a poor Asian student from a troubled neighborhood be denied while a
wealthy black kid with lower scores is admitted?

“Because Asians elsewhere do well while blacks elsewhere struggle” is an
inherently racist answer.

I don’t support racism, even if you claim you’re racist for the “right”
reasons — like every other bigot in history.

------
umvi
This is obviously a controversial topic, and I have mixed feelings.

The bottom line (for me) is that diversity at universities and other
organizations is either good, neutral, or bad. We've (mostly?) collectively
agreed diversity is good as diversity in sex/age/race bring diversity in
thought, which presumably results in more innovation/competition/challenging
of status quo/etc. The only way to _increase_ diversity is to practice
negative discrimination on dominant groups or positive discrimination on
minorities...

Either that or universities need to dedicate a large amount of funding
marketing to minorities so that they get more competitive applicants from said
group. However, discrimination is easier and cheaper to implement.

~~~
skybrian
I think Harvard should be 10x bigger than it is. Why can't we have that? This
needn't be zero-sum.

~~~
MiroF
Because there is potentially merit in having institutions that are
concentrated with the most talented. Not that it necessarily works out that
way in practice, but 10x would entail lowering admission standards.

~~~
gog-ma-gog
The number of people “qualified” to go to Harvard is probably more than 10x
the current capacity of Harvard, though. Maintaining scarcity/exclusivity in
the brand is more valuable than servicing the number of people technically
qualified to go there, from Harvard’s perspective.

~~~
MiroF
Yes, but many of those people choose to go to other prestigious schools. If
Harvard admitted 50% of applicants, I don't see how you can claim quality
wouldn't suffer.

~~~
gog-ma-gog
I claimed no such thing :D

~~~
MiroF
You said that they should admit 10x. Presumably that would mean 50% rather
than 5%. I think quality would go down, you said it wouldn't. Seems clear cut
to me.

