Newsletter

April 2009

Staving Off The ‘Yellow Peril’: The University of California regents attempt to curtail Asian admissions

Stephan Thernstrom

In 1995, the regents of the University of
California, at the urging of Ward Connerly and Gov. Pete Wilson, voted to bar
racial preferences on all nine of the system’s campuses. A year later, the
state passed Proposition 209, an amendment to the constitution that extended
that ban to state and local governments. But today, the regents are expected to
approve major changes in admissions policies that represent the most recent of
many misguided attempts to circumvent Prop 209.

The move is breathtaking. It will drop the
requirement that applicants take two SAT “subject tests”; if the students the
school wants tend to do poorly on such tests, then it is best not to know just
how poorly. The plan also sharply lowers the academic standards that applicants
must meet to be eligible for a “full admissions review.” This review is where
their distinctive “personal qualities” can be discerned and made to count for
more than the weaknesses in their academic performance.

These changes are manifestly driven by the
desire to bring in more black and Hispanic students. Remarkably, though, the
university’s own projections indicate that the plan will do almost nothing to
expand black enrollment and will be of very modest benefit to Hispanics. Even
more remarkably, the prime beneficiaries of the changes will be non-Hispanic
whites, whose share of total enrollments is predicted to rise by 20-30 percent.
And the big losers will be Asian Americans, whose numbers will be reduced by
10-20 percent. The net effect will thus be to make the University of California
substantially “whiter” than it has been. That’s ironic, because when the battle
for race-blind admissions began, opponents worried that Prop 209 would transform
UC into a “lily white” institution. This dire prophecy proved ludicrously far
from the mark. The big gainers were not white applicants; they were Asian
Americans. Although only 12 percent of the state’s population, Asians accounted
for 37 percent of UC admissions in 2008.

Also, while black and Hispanic enrollments
at the most selective campuses (Berkeley and UCLA) did fall sharply, rises at
places like Riverside and Irvine more than offset the declines. In fact, the
Hispanic share of total UC enrollments has risen dramatically over the past
dozen years, from 14 to 22 percent. Black students made gains too, though
slight ones. More important, minority graduation rates have improved
substantially, now that these students are no longer “mismatched” as a result of
racial double standards.

Although these numbers indicate that blacks and
Hispanics, particularly the latter, have fared well under race-blind admissions,
university officials have long been tinkering with the rules in an effort to
bring in more “underrepresented minorities.” Standardized tests have counted
for less and less, and admissions have become more “holistic” – i.e.,
subjective. Demonstrating that an applicant has “overcome disadvantage” has
become more important than demonstrating that he grasps quadratic equations and
can write a literate essay.

It’s hard to believe that, as part of this
mission, the regents are deliberately trying to do their bit to stave off the
“yellow peril.” But proponents of racial preferences have let slip some highly
unsavory attitudes on occasion. My wife, Abigail, appeared on Crossfire
many years ago and was asked by liberal co-host Bob Beckel whether she would
“like to see UCLA Law School 80 percent Asian.” In a 1995 interview, President
Clinton said that “there are universities in California that could fill their
entire freshman classes with nothing but Asian Americans.” In 1998, a writer
for Newsday asked, “Since Asians outscore everyone, would we accept an
all-Asian class?” Nasty stuff, and not aberrational. If you truly believe that
it is unjust that some groups are “underrepresented” at elite institutions, it
follows inexorably that no groups may be “overrepresented.” Mathematically,
when no one is underrepresented, no one is overrepresented. Since Asians have
more than triple their “proper share” of places at the University of California,
and quadruple their share at Berkeley and UCLA, they are the chief obstacle to
“equity” in higher education.

A high-school counselor interviewed by Inside
Higher Education denied that the university officials who dreamed up the new
plan were motivated by anti-Asian prejudice. He contended that the drop in the
number of Asians admitted is just “collateral damage.” The metaphor misleads.
The new admissions policy is likely not motivated by a desire to cut back on
Asian enrollments but by a desire to expand the enrollments of other groups.
But if you can’t do much of the latter without a lot of the former, this is a
distinctions without a difference.

Stepan Thernstrom is Winthrop Research Professor
of History at Harvard University.
National Review Online, February 6, 2009.