Soy sauce tears
www.nytimes.com
The group that successfully sued Harvard to end affirmative action in university admissions last year is now threatening to investigate whether schools are complying with the new rules and to file lawsuits if it believes that they are not.
The group, Students for Fair Admissions, has focused on three universities — Princeton, Yale and Duke — where there were notable declines in Asian American enrollment this year compared with the last year, which the group said defied expectations.
On Tuesday, Students for Fair Admissions sent letters to the schools questioning whether they were complying with the rules laid out by the Supreme Court. Princeton, Duke and Yale also saw minor differences in Black and Hispanic enrollment in the first class of students admitted since the court struck down race-conscious admissions.
The group, a nonprofit that opposes race-based admissions and that represented Asian students in the lawsuit against Harvard, suggested that it was setting itself up as an enforcer of the new rules.
“Based on S.F.F.A.’s extensive experience, your racial numbers are not possible under true neutrality,” the letters, signed by Edward Blum, the president of Students for Fair Admissions, said. It added: “You are now on notice. Preserve all potentially relevant documents and communications.”
It was one of the first shots across the bow at universities struggling to comply with the court’s order while maintaining a diverse student body, and a sign that the fight over race-conscious admissions did not end with the Supreme Court’s decision. The threatening letters also gave universities — which have been notoriously secretive about their admissions procedures — even more incentive to be opaque.
“I think the fight is now going to move away from policies to what is happening in admissions offices,” said William Jacobson, a Cornell law professor and founder of the Equal Protection Project, a conservative nonprofit that has challenged diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
OiYan Poon, a researcher of college admissions systems and the author of “Asian American Is Not a Color,” a book published in April about the affirmative action debate, said Mr. Blum had jumped the gun with his letters. Admissions numbers fluctuate, she said, and one year is too soon to draw conclusions.
“It’s disappointing to see the same old intimidation tactics that Blum is using here to scare universities away from doing what they can to ensure that high-quality, talented students are given a shot,” said Dr. Poon.
Among the variables shaping the current numbers is the jump in the percentage of students who chose not to check the boxes for race and ethnicity on their applications. At Princeton, for instance, that number rose to 7.7 percent this year from just 1.8 percent last year. At Duke it rose to 11 percent from 5 percent. Universities may not know whether the “unknown” number includes more white and Asian American students.
Universities have also tried to achieve more diversity by increasing the percentage of students on financial aid, to 71 percent from 66 percent at Princeton.
“We have carefully adhered to the requirements set out by the Supreme Court,” Jennifer Morrill, a spokeswoman for Princeton, said Tuesday. Yale and Duke did not provide immediate comment.
“It is deeply ironic that Mr. Blum now wants admissions numbers to move in lock step,” said Oren Sellstrom, litigation director for Lawyers for Civil Rights in Boston, which has filed a complaint with the Department of Education against Harvard’s legacy admissions policy, accusing it of favoring white applicants.
Asian American enrollment dropped to 29 percent from 35 percent at Duke; to 24 percent from 30 percent at Yale; and to 23.8 percent from 26 percent at Princeton. At the same time, Black enrollment rose to 13 percent from 12 percent at Duke; stayed at 14 percent at Yale; and dropped to 8.9 percent from 9 percent at Princeton.
In the court case, Harvard, supported by other universities, including Yale, Princeton and Duke, argued that considering race as one of many factors in an application was the best way to achieve diversity in college classes. The Supreme Court ruled that giving preferences to students based on race violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and civil rights law.
To comply with the court’s decision, colleges did not allow their admissions officers to see the boxes where applicants checked off their race or ethnicity until after students had been admitted, the waiting lists had been closed, and the students had actually enrolled.
But in one of the most enigmatic parts of its decision, the court allowed admissions officers to consider race if it came up in the student’s personal essay as part of a narrative about something meaningful in the student’s life.
In the letters sent out Tuesday, Students for Fair Admissions hinted that the essay was going to be a big part of its investigation into admissions procedures. It noted in the first paragraph of the letters that the court had warned against using essays to circumvent the new admissions rules.
Yale, Princeton and Duke Are Questioned Over Decline in Asian Students
The legal group that won a Supreme Court case that ended race-based college admissions suggested it might sue schools where the percentage of Asian students fell.
The group that successfully sued Harvard to end affirmative action in university admissions last year is now threatening to investigate whether schools are complying with the new rules and to file lawsuits if it believes that they are not.
The group, Students for Fair Admissions, has focused on three universities — Princeton, Yale and Duke — where there were notable declines in Asian American enrollment this year compared with the last year, which the group said defied expectations.
On Tuesday, Students for Fair Admissions sent letters to the schools questioning whether they were complying with the rules laid out by the Supreme Court. Princeton, Duke and Yale also saw minor differences in Black and Hispanic enrollment in the first class of students admitted since the court struck down race-conscious admissions.
The group, a nonprofit that opposes race-based admissions and that represented Asian students in the lawsuit against Harvard, suggested that it was setting itself up as an enforcer of the new rules.
“Based on S.F.F.A.’s extensive experience, your racial numbers are not possible under true neutrality,” the letters, signed by Edward Blum, the president of Students for Fair Admissions, said. It added: “You are now on notice. Preserve all potentially relevant documents and communications.”
It was one of the first shots across the bow at universities struggling to comply with the court’s order while maintaining a diverse student body, and a sign that the fight over race-conscious admissions did not end with the Supreme Court’s decision. The threatening letters also gave universities — which have been notoriously secretive about their admissions procedures — even more incentive to be opaque.
“I think the fight is now going to move away from policies to what is happening in admissions offices,” said William Jacobson, a Cornell law professor and founder of the Equal Protection Project, a conservative nonprofit that has challenged diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
OiYan Poon, a researcher of college admissions systems and the author of “Asian American Is Not a Color,” a book published in April about the affirmative action debate, said Mr. Blum had jumped the gun with his letters. Admissions numbers fluctuate, she said, and one year is too soon to draw conclusions.
“It’s disappointing to see the same old intimidation tactics that Blum is using here to scare universities away from doing what they can to ensure that high-quality, talented students are given a shot,” said Dr. Poon.
Among the variables shaping the current numbers is the jump in the percentage of students who chose not to check the boxes for race and ethnicity on their applications. At Princeton, for instance, that number rose to 7.7 percent this year from just 1.8 percent last year. At Duke it rose to 11 percent from 5 percent. Universities may not know whether the “unknown” number includes more white and Asian American students.
Universities have also tried to achieve more diversity by increasing the percentage of students on financial aid, to 71 percent from 66 percent at Princeton.
“We have carefully adhered to the requirements set out by the Supreme Court,” Jennifer Morrill, a spokeswoman for Princeton, said Tuesday. Yale and Duke did not provide immediate comment.
“It is deeply ironic that Mr. Blum now wants admissions numbers to move in lock step,” said Oren Sellstrom, litigation director for Lawyers for Civil Rights in Boston, which has filed a complaint with the Department of Education against Harvard’s legacy admissions policy, accusing it of favoring white applicants.
Asian American enrollment dropped to 29 percent from 35 percent at Duke; to 24 percent from 30 percent at Yale; and to 23.8 percent from 26 percent at Princeton. At the same time, Black enrollment rose to 13 percent from 12 percent at Duke; stayed at 14 percent at Yale; and dropped to 8.9 percent from 9 percent at Princeton.
In the court case, Harvard, supported by other universities, including Yale, Princeton and Duke, argued that considering race as one of many factors in an application was the best way to achieve diversity in college classes. The Supreme Court ruled that giving preferences to students based on race violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and civil rights law.
To comply with the court’s decision, colleges did not allow their admissions officers to see the boxes where applicants checked off their race or ethnicity until after students had been admitted, the waiting lists had been closed, and the students had actually enrolled.
But in one of the most enigmatic parts of its decision, the court allowed admissions officers to consider race if it came up in the student’s personal essay as part of a narrative about something meaningful in the student’s life.
In the letters sent out Tuesday, Students for Fair Admissions hinted that the essay was going to be a big part of its investigation into admissions procedures. It noted in the first paragraph of the letters that the court had warned against using essays to circumvent the new admissions rules.
