An Asian American's Reflection on Affirmative Action
In 2014, one of the most prestigious universities in the world, Harvard, was sued for its policy of affirmative action. Affirmative action is a policy of ‘positive discrimination’, which seeks out members of racially underrepresented groups. For colleges, this means that colleges will often look at the racial background of applicants. Harvard, just like many other universities, includes affirmative action in its policy for new student admissions.
Recently on Youtube, I watched a Nov. 10, 2022 Zoom forum hosted by Heterodox Academy (East Asia Community), to discuss this sensitive issue. I listened to various arguments and data, for and against affirmative action, but the most memorable quote came from critic Kenny Xu, author of An Inconvenient Minority:
“I would like to be treated on what I can control about myself and what I can control about myself is my hard work, my study habits, my ability to perform, my friendships, my relationships, my character. That's what I can control about myself. I can't control the fact that I was born this way, that I look like this, that any of you guys look like this. A fair society to me is a society where people are treated based on what they can control.”
Kenny Xu’s argument directly rebuts the claim of philosopher Ronald Dworkin, quoted in Michael Sandel’s book Justice (2009). Dworkin argues that affirmative action is different from segregation-era racial exclusion, since it does not imply that any one race is more worthy than the other. But Xu’s quote shows that many Asian-Americans do feel devalued by affirmative action, and his claim receives some support from the Harvard case. Harvard’s admissions committee declares that certain races are less disadvantaged for the process of evaluation, indirectly suggesting that others are more advantaged, and specifically unfairly advantaged. This implies that those who are thus unfairly advantaged are less morally worthy, at least in the views of the admissions committee. Thus, labeling certain groups or races as advantaged or ‘privileged’ can also be an example of stigmatization.
The effects of stigmatization in affirmative action directly correlate to whites and especially Asians being evaluated on a more demanding standard, specifically on their “personality ratings.” Personality is an intangible scale to evaluate on, especially from colleges who have never had a true personal interaction with these applicants before. Yet, Harvard rates these students based on their personalities, and Asian students are given significantly lower ratings.
This, again, leans into the idea of stigmatization. Asians are stereotypically seen as naturally smart conformists, or ‘robots’ who only study all the time and don’t participate in other hobbies or social activities. So although ratings from the applicant’s interviewers may be high, the Harvard admissions committee still categorizes most Asian applicants as “standard,” or lacking true individuality and uniqueness. So although people like Dworkin may believe that affirmative action isn’t racial exclusion, critics would reply that any race-based policy devalues certain races and is tremendously unfair.
The debate over affirmative action is complex and its ultimate merits is beyond the scope of this essay. Personally, I agree with Kenny Xu’s argument. It seems that Asian Americans become more conscious of their race as they become closer to the age of entering college, pushing them to see each other as competition. They believe they need to ‘stand out,’ and be special among the various Asian Americans for a good chance of getting into college. Is this policy worth the cost of people becoming more conscious of racial divisions?
- END -
About the writer: Michelle Park is an 11th grader that attends the Orange County School of the Arts in California.