In a recent interview, malcolm gladwellAcclaimed author of tipping point, Highlights the troubling issue of prejudice against Asian-American and Indian students Inside Ivy League Admission, especially into Harvard. Discussing his latest book, Tipping Point’s RevengeGladwell criticized Harvard’s admissions practices, which he called “bias toward affluent white students.”
He compared Harvard’s admissions process to Caltech, a university with a merit-based approach. They observed that the proportion of Asian-American students caltech It increased from 25% to 43% between 1992 and 2013. Meanwhile, Harvard’s percentage remained between 15–20%, a disparity he attributed to legacy admissions, donor contributions, and athletic scholarships. Gladwell said it would be even more difficult for Indian applicants to gain admission to the Ivy League.
Gladwell’s stance underscores a broader social debate, brought to the fore by a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling on the controversial topic. affirmative action Many Asian-Americans felt they were being targeted.
US Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision
In June 2023, the US Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision regarding affirmative action in higher education, concluding that race-conscious entry Programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC) violated the equal protection clause. This decision essentially ended the decades-old practice of using racial preferences in university admissions, arguing that such practices perpetuated racial stereotypes and failed to serve a meaningful purpose.
Although the decision was a victory for its advocates merit based admission process, it sparked heated debate. While many advocacy groups lobbied in favor of racial preferences, surveys indicated that most Americans opposed using race or ethnicity as a factor in college admissions. Notably, 91.7% of Asian advocacy groups that submitted amicus briefs supported race-conscious admissions, with surveys showing that a significant majority of Asian-Americans, particularly those of Indian origin, support these policies. Opposed.
ivy league bias
Asian-Americans, and Indians in particular, face unique challenges in Ivy League admissions. Many applicants from this demographic have stellar academic records and exceptional extracurricular achievements, yet they are often overlooked in favor of less academically qualified candidates from other racial groups. This incident is not just a mistake but an indication of deep-rooted prejudice against Asian and Indian applicants.
Prejudice stems partly from stereotypes. Admissions officers often view Asian applicants, including Indians, as lacking “character” qualities such as leadership or individuality. They are often viewed as studious, STEM-focused candidates, causing admissions committees to penalize them for pursuing careers in medicine, engineering, or computer science—fields traditionally associated with Asian-Americans. This bias is further compounded by the perception that they are overrepresented in higher education.
How Asian-American advocacy groups differ from actual Asian interests
A clear disconnect exists between the positions of Asian-American advocacy groups and the priorities of the broader Asian-American community. Although 76% of Asian-Americans opposed racial preferences in higher education admissions, 91.7% of advocacy groups that filed amicus briefs in support of Harvard and UNC’s race-conscious admissions programs advocated such policies. These organizations often operate with financial support from foundations and corporations and are staffed by individuals who are associated with left-wing ideology, sometimes resulting in positions that do not reflect the wishes of the broader community.
In contrast, grassroots coalitions consisting of parents, immigrants, and ordinary citizens are more representative of mainstream Asian-American sentiment. They oppose race-conscious admissions policies and advocate meritocracy.
How bias works in Ivy League admissions
The Ivy League admissions process often evaluates applicants holistically, taking into account factors such as legacy status, athletic ability, and subjective qualities such as ‘likeability’ and ‘leadership’. However, this approach disproportionately harms Asian-Americans, particularly those of Indian origin. Despite receiving high grades and test scores, these applicants are rated low in ‘personal’ qualities – criteria that are inherently subjective and prone to bias.
Asian-American applicants, including Indians, are often perceived as lacking ‘leadership potential’ or as ‘uninteresting’, which translates into lower qualitative scores. This systemic discrimination is similar to the barriers faced by Jewish students in the early 20th century, when they were subject to quotas limiting their representation at Ivy League institutions.
Gladwell’s comments were a rare example of a non-partisan political figure making comments about meritocracy that would have been called racist if said by someone with political authority. Gladwell argued in the same interview: “Meritocracy is one of the most beautiful inventions of the 20th century – it is the foundation of a free society.” That qualitative society cannot be achieved by isolating one group. There is nothing more deeply anti-American than this.
