When it comes to diversity, I’m an OG–an affirmative action baby from back in the day.
The Harvard decision last week makes me cheer. And cry. It solves nothing. It only furthers an Asian American stereotype as well as expose a crack in the Asian American community.
I attended Harvard when it was less than 2 percent Asian American, and they thought Filipinos were more like West Coast Puerto Ricans. So I know the problems of affirmative action at Harvard. And it’s not simply about getting in. It’s also about the support or lack of support once you do get in. Looking back, it seems I was there for decorative affect for the Harvards. They needed me for the institution to look good. What I got out of it was incidental. The Harvard affirmative action case decided last week by Federal Judge Allison D. Burroughs doesn’t address those deeper affirmative action issues. That’s not to take away against Burroughs’ decision.
But after more than 50 years of affirmative action’s legal struggles, the battle is still stuck at the admissions gate. Who gets in? Who gets rejected? Every landmark case adds a new twist. The 1970s Baake case at UC Davis outlawed quotas. The Grutter case at Michigan withstood the assault from colorblind advocates. Most recently, the “whole student” approach to affirmative action survived the challenge of a beleaguered White female student, Abigail Fisher at the University of Texas.
In each case, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly established what should by now be considered settled law. Race can be used in admissions, as long as the approach does not include quotas and maintains a narrow focus. If the Harvard case crossed any of those lines this time around, then affirmative action would be struck down at America’s top university, a crushing blow.
But that’s not what the court found.
Judge Burroughs’ decision went over a case made complicated by the star witnesses who offered two differing statistical models. The pro-Harvard one was more complete and showed there was no discrimination. The anti-Harvard statistical model was less complete and didn’t convince the judge of any discrimination. It even left out the legacy and athletic factors, 30 percent of Harvard admits (which shows another aspect in need of reform—affirmative action for the White privileged).
