Nearly a quarter of Asian Americans accepted to elite colleges would no longer qualify if their acceptances were based on tests alone, according to a new report from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW).
Key findings: The study, which ran statistical simulations of admissions decisions, found “no strong evidence” of discrimination against Asian Americans in 91 of the country’s most selective colleges and universities.
Voters in California are expected to cast a ballot on affirmative action this November, potentially repealing a proposition that bans preferential treatment based on sex, race or ethnicity in state institutions.
Background: The California State Legislature first addressed affirmative action in 2014 after the Senate proposed a constitutional amendment to ban the consideration of sex, race and ethnicity in college admissions. However, the measure was set aside in the Assembly after Asian Americans argued that it could limit their children’s chances of admission in the state’s most selective public universities, where the group has a larger share of students than in the overall population, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
As it turns out, the multicultural images plastered in pamphlets, ads, and social media accounts from Harvard University are all but a facade as majority of its population is still, as it has always been, wealthy, white, and straight. Most of them hailing from the country’s coasts.
Also, many of them got there not because of merit but of nepotism, according to a study published in the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Harvard University does not discriminate against Asian Americans in its admissions process, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.
In her 130-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs rejected the argument of the plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a group claiming that the Ivy League university held Asians to higher standards compared to Black and Hispanic applicants.
In the midst of a legal battle accusing them of discriminating against Asian Americans, Harvard University admitted a record number of the pan-ethnic group for the Class of 2023.
On Thursday, the university announced that the share of Asian Americans in its latest admissions cycle is 25.4% — the highest percentage ever — out of 1,950 successful applicants.
A UCLA professor and a new Asian American organization are suing the University of California for withholding records that could expose the system’s racial bias against Asian Americans in undergraduate admissions.
Professor Richard Sander, a known critic of affirmative action, and the Asian American Community Services Center (AACSC) believe that the UC system is violating Proposition 209, a state initiative passed in 1996 that prohibits public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race.
According to the Pew Research Center, the U.S. Asian Population grew 72% from 2000 to 2015, making us the fastest growing minority ethnic group in America. By 2055 Asian Americans are projected to become the largest immigrant group in the country. We’ve become a key demographic in political elections, meaning our vote matters more than ever and both Republicans and Democrats have picked up on this fact.
Most recently, Asian Americans have decided to take on the Affirmative Action debate with a lawsuit against Harvard University, accusing them of unfairly discriminating against Asian students during the admissions process. And even within the Asian American communities, it appears we just can’t come to an agreement whether this is a positive or negative way to make our mark in history.
Two Chinese American organizations protesting against Harvard University’s affirmative action policies ahead of its trial reportedly ended up in a physical altercation when one group allegedly prohibited the other to bring materials that support Donald Trump.
The event, organized by the Chinese American Alliance (CAA), saw more than 300 Asian Americans call for an end on the university’s consideration of race in admissions, which allegedly favor Black and Hispanic over Asian applicants to maintain campus diversity.
Editor’s Note: Ranier Maningding is a copywriter and mastermind behind the social justice page “The Love Life of an Asian Guy”. The opinions expressed in this piece are solely his own.
So you’re at the dinner table on Christmas night, laughing with your cousins who you haven’t seen in years, trying to eat as much food as humanely possible when suddenly, a wild racist uncle appears!
The NY Times has recently come under fire for an article suggesting that Netflix’s acquisition of a Korean drama had something to do with affirmative action.
The article, which has since been quietly amended amidst the backlash, listed a handful of new shows for readers to view at their leisure. It previously stated that the South Korean Drama, “Stranger”, was an “affirmative-action slot” added to Netflix’s roster, as the company must have recognized “the ubiquity and popularity of South Korean dramas“.
Earlier this week, Donald Trump announced that he wanted to investigate “race-based discrimination” against some college applicants, even going as far as preparing to redirect financial resources to the investigation. The administration’s aim is to determine if the policies are unfairly refusing admittance to students based on their racial background.
Affirmative Action was first referenced in an official capacity in the U.S. as an executive order signed by John F. Kennedy in 1961, mandating that government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin” (Executive Order 10925). Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, government organizations and organizations that received funding for the government had to prove, with metrics, that they were not hiring based off discriminatory practices. Eventually, this evolved into policies adopted by other organizations, such as private companies and universities. This was to ensure that people of all races (non-Whites, but in the context of U.S. politics it was aimed at helping predominately Blacks) could have an equal chance at educational and employment opportunities.
On Sunday, President-elect Donald Trump appointed two top advisers for his administration. Republican Chairman Reince Priebus was named his new chief of staff while Steve Bannon, the CEO of the Trump Campaign and executive chairman of Breitbart News, was named his chief strategist.
Breitbart News is a destination that Bannon proclaims to be “the platform for the alt-right,” a conservative movement that opposes immigration, multiculturalism and political correctness. They’re also generally known to be Trump supporters.