This past week, there was an interesting issue related to an ongoing trial in a federal court. Certain people (with testimony by expert witness Richard Kahlenberg) accused Harvard University of favoring certain groups of students during the admissions process, such as those with a family member connected to the college and who are predominantly white and wealthy. The plaintiffs called for “race-neutral alternatives” that Harvard could use during the admissions process to ensure class diversity, but the college refused these, arguing they would not work.
One of the plaintiffs’ main arguments was that Harvard was “squeezing out” many highly qualified Asian-Americans because they were giving preference to the students with connections. Kahlenberg also believed that the university should give a stronger preference to the low-income students, as Harvard had not done a good job of admitting skilled students who were in poverty. Under the plaintiffs’ proposal, they believed that the percentage of students in the class from races other than white and those considered “disadvantaged” would rise. By taking into account family income, there would be an increase in admission of African-Americans.
Harvard responded by saying it was important to give preference to students with certain connections, otherwise known as the “legacy advantage,” because it would encourage alumni to volunteer and donate money, in hopes that one day their children would be accepted to the school. Another key reason Harvard pointed out was that under the plaintiffs’ proposal for race neutral alternatives, it was evident that the percentage of African-Americans would actually drop and Harvard did not want this to happen. Further, Dean Rakesh Khurana argued this proposal would make going to Harvard a completely different experience, and the college was already doing a good job in building racially/ethnically diverse classes, something that Mr. Kahlenberg would value as well. The question of whether there can be race neutral alternatives to the admissions policies will be more important if the case can make it to the Supreme Court, where decisions have been made in the past that are in favor of both sides of this argument. To read more in depth about this case and the history behind it, Click here
This issue shows not only divisions in our society but also reflects the topic of inclusion, which are two of the main things we have studied so far in class this year. A university showing preferences to certain groups of students based on their background reinforces the idea of exclusion and how not everyone can be a part of the certain community, even if they might deserve it just as much as a person who is “in.” It is also clear that “borders” in our society may lead to unequal opportunities for different groups. When reading about this case, do you think that both sides produce valid arguments? What are some of the different figurative borders present? How might these borders lead to unfair advantages for one group over another?
One of the plaintiffs’ main arguments was that Harvard was “squeezing out” many highly qualified Asian-Americans because they were giving preference to the students with connections. Kahlenberg also believed that the university should give a stronger preference to the low-income students, as Harvard had not done a good job of admitting skilled students who were in poverty. Under the plaintiffs’ proposal, they believed that the percentage of students in the class from races other than white and those considered “disadvantaged” would rise. By taking into account family income, there would be an increase in admission of African-Americans.
Harvard responded by saying it was important to give preference to students with certain connections, otherwise known as the “legacy advantage,” because it would encourage alumni to volunteer and donate money, in hopes that one day their children would be accepted to the school. Another key reason Harvard pointed out was that under the plaintiffs’ proposal for race neutral alternatives, it was evident that the percentage of African-Americans would actually drop and Harvard did not want this to happen. Further, Dean Rakesh Khurana argued this proposal would make going to Harvard a completely different experience, and the college was already doing a good job in building racially/ethnically diverse classes, something that Mr. Kahlenberg would value as well. The question of whether there can be race neutral alternatives to the admissions policies will be more important if the case can make it to the Supreme Court, where decisions have been made in the past that are in favor of both sides of this argument. To read more in depth about this case and the history behind it, Click here
This issue shows not only divisions in our society but also reflects the topic of inclusion, which are two of the main things we have studied so far in class this year. A university showing preferences to certain groups of students based on their background reinforces the idea of exclusion and how not everyone can be a part of the certain community, even if they might deserve it just as much as a person who is “in.” It is also clear that “borders” in our society may lead to unequal opportunities for different groups. When reading about this case, do you think that both sides produce valid arguments? What are some of the different figurative borders present? How might these borders lead to unfair advantages for one group over another?
Great post, Henry. This is a big story -- especially for folks interested in college admissions. One of the more interesting things to consider in this issue is how we measure the worth of an applicant. Is it as simple as standardized test scores? GPA? Can a college truly know what an applicant will offer?
ReplyDelete