As we enter our final year of high school, we have to consider where we'll spend the next 4 years of our lives. Increasingly, the debate surrounding affirmative action has become relevant again, the most recent case of this being the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University.
While many may see this newest case against Affirmative Action as a new development because it is arguing that Harvard is discriminating against Asians, a historically discriminated against race in the United States, there are several more motives behind it that need to be considered.
The Students for Fair Admissions organization is led by Edward Blum, a conservative political strategist most notably led for other cases he brought against Affirmative Action and minorities' rights such as Abigail Fisher v. Texas (a case against affirmative action brought by a white woman) and Shelby County v. Holder (a case where districts were drawn sometimes to give discriminated against minorities an extra boost).
So while Harvard University may or may not be discriminating against Asians, rating them lower on a personality scale and calling them less likable, courageous, and kind, it is imperative to realize that the ulterior motives of this lawsuit are a move by white conservative politicians to further limit the rights of minorities. The new case against Harvard is just another vehicle for Blum's ulterior motives of striking down affirmative action, following the failure of Fisher v. Texas.
So yes, while Harvard might hold bias against Asian Americans or admit them at a significantly lower rate than their other minority counterparts with similar profiles, it's important not to fall for Blum's ploy of plotting minority v. minority, to ultimately strike down the rights of minorities across the board.
I think that this is an interesting point because typically when you think of this case , you usually look at Harvard's bias against Asians, however this is a completely different take. Edward plum contested some part of the Voting Rights Act and he won in 1990's. He has influenced Harvard to give him sensitive racial demographic data containing test scores and personal essays under court seal. He also has a like-minded individual on the supreme court that supports his views. I don't think that this is far off the fact that he is trying to push what he pushed for when in past cases.
ReplyDelete