A Response to Allegations Against Yale University
*Affirmative Action is the practice of favouring certain groups which have been historically discriminated against, most commonly as race in college admissions.
On the 13th of August, the United States Department of “Justice” published a misleading and undeniably political accusation against Yale, finding their affirmative action(AA) program* “guilty” of “illegal discrimination” against Asian and White undergraduate applicants and further alleging that their undergraduate admissions process “violated” Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In the days that followed, a wave of news reports on these allegations flooded outlets nationwide, sparking global discussion and outrage.
“...everyone knows Yale, Harvard[sic] and all of the other fancy private colleges discriminate heavily against Asians and Jews in favor of blacks[sic] and Latinos,” New York Post’s Kyle Smith writes in his article “Yale can’t discriminate against Jews and Asians and expect taxpayer money.” In addition to omitting an Oxford comma, Kyle also capitalized every race but Black. Thank you, Kyle (Go girl! Give us absolutely nothing!). Kyle adds, “the language of the Civil Rights Act is rarely quoted in the media today because it is race-neutral and today’s liberals are race-obsessed. If blacks[sic] have an equal shot at success, but few of them pass a given test, this is unsatisfactory. Instead, liberals want quotas to assure blacks[sic] are present in every institution.” This response is just one of many voices similarly outraged at Yale–and by extension, the AA program at other institutions of higher learning–after these allegations surfaced. Let’s remind Kyle (of course his name is Kyle) that historical (and present, very present) systemic racism has led to unbelievably endemic inequalities that should be addressed with policies leading to equity, not equality, and let’s move on.
Such allegations against institutions of higher education like Yale are not uncommon. Take Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard (2014), for example (in which it was ruled that Harvard had not discriminated), or Fisher v. University of Texas(2016), or allegations against UNC Chapel Hill, or UW Madison, or the countless other universities that have come under attack.
Several objects of note.
Most accusations are derived from Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), an organization founded by Edward Blum, an activist against laws involving race and ethnicity.
Staunchly and characteristically conservative, Blum, who is not an attorney, spends his time trying to tear down every facet of affirmative action in the United States.
Other hobbies probably include calling victims of microaggressions “snowflakes.”
But back to Yale. This blatant, politically motivated declaration intended to divide minorities was undeniably successful in doing so. Outrage over Yale’s “discriminatory practices” were reflected in Asian and Asian American communities, and I too have to admit that I felt resentment and anger when I first heard the news. However, one can easily recognize the deeply political nature of this article. The current right-leaning administration has long tried to overturn SFFA v. Harvard (2014) and stoking resentment over AA whilst dividing minorities seems like the obvious solution to filling institutions of higher learning with fewer minorities.
Here’s a legal note; AA is not inherently unconstitutional. Instead, as held by Fisher v. Univ. of Texas (2016), AA is always under strict scrutiny. This means that the purpose behind AA has to be compelling, and the steps toward achieving this narrowly tailored. Diversity in education is a compelling purpose for a variety of reasons, as held by Fisher v. Univ of Texas (2016), Grutter v. Bollinger(2003), and University of California v. Bakke (1978). As for the means toward achieving this, as long as the schools in question withstand scrutiny over certain criteria such as proving that race is just one factor among holistic admissions, their AA program remains constitutional.
Yale has pointed out that the DOJ made this decision without sufficient information, possessing only a 4-page document whereas the Harvard documents were 130-pages. I wholeheartedly agree. Considering the extent to which strict scrutiny examines, it’s difficult to see this statement as none other than a weak attempt at dividing minorities, pitting Asian Americans against Black and Latinx communities. Some would even venture to argue that this declaration (in which the Assistant Attorney General basically states “racism bad, never nice”) is a hasty attempt at regaining control from a tumultuous lead-up to the November elections.
Asians are not your model minority and will not be your political conduit to maintain white supremacy. Maybe next time, instead of focusing on AA, let’s take a deeper look at legacy-based admission, the real problem of higher education.