In a contentious debate surrounding race-based admissions in U.S. higher education, conservative commentator Helen Andrews argues that recent changes have disproportionately harmed white applicants. Her claims, outlined in a recent article for Compact magazine, seek to challenge the principles of race-neutrality and meritocracy that have gained traction following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Andrews contends that the end of race-based preferences has notably benefited Asian students, whose representation in Harvard’s freshman class has surged from 26 percent to 41 percent in just four years. Conversely, she claims that the white student body has dwindled from 47 percent to 31 percent. Andrews posits this shift as evidence of systemic bias favoring Asian students at the expense of their white counterparts, and she cites her concerns over what she describes as “Asian grind culture” and alleged pervasive cheating among Asian test-takers.
Critics quickly pointed out that Andrews’ narrative is oversimplified and ignores broader trends. According to data from The Harvard Crimson, Hispanic enrollment dropped from 16 percent to 11 percent within the past year, while Black enrollment decreased by 2.5 percent, bringing the current figure to 11.5 percent. This data suggests that the end of racial preferences has negatively impacted all racial groups, not solely white applicants, contradicting Andrews’ central thesis. The ruling is expected to benefit those historically at a disadvantage—chiefly, Asian applicants—while diminishing the representation of other minority groups.
Andrews further implies that the architect of the lawsuit, Edward Blum, is indifferent to anti-white discrimination. She argues, “Harvard did not stop discriminating by race; it simply stopped doing so against Asians,” contending that affirmative action persists but has merely shifted its focus. This assertion has been met with sharp criticism, as Blum’s lawsuit centered on documented discrimination against Asian applicants, a fact that helped persuade the Supreme Court to curtail racial preferences across the board.
Moreover, Andrews’ interpretation of public sentiment among Asian Americans is misleading. While she cites a poll indicating that many Asian Americans support affirmative action, she neglects to clarify that a significant majority oppose the consideration of race and ethnicity in college admissions. The Pew Research Survey she references indicates that three-quarters of respondents from this demographic believe that such criteria should not factor into admissions decisions, suggesting a complex relationship with affirmative action that Andrews’ article fails to capture accurately.
The remaining arguments in Andrews’ piece rely on anecdotal evidence rather than robust data, including a controversial assertion regarding Indian doctors and unnecessary medical procedures. Despite acknowledging that there is no evidence of ethnic disparities in this context within the U.S., she still advocates for a reduction in high-skilled immigration, citing various concerns about the impact of foreign talent on domestic job markets.
Andrews suggests that the U.S. should consider a “pause on high-skilled immigration,” claiming it would alleviate pressures on American industries and redirect opportunities towards domestic applicants. However, this perspective raises questions about the long-term implications for America’s global competitiveness, particularly in high-tech sectors that rely heavily on skilled labor. Critics argue that such a nationalist and populist approach could hinder innovation and economic growth, further entrenching the U.S. in a position of decline relative to other nations.
As the debate over race-based admissions and immigration policy continues to evolve, the broader implications of these discussions on American society and its elite institutions remain significant. Whether Andrews’ vision for fewer high-skilled immigrants and a return to affirmative action strategies focused primarily on white applicants gains traction will likely shape the future landscape of higher education and workforce dynamics in the United States.
See also
AI Infrastructure Boosts US GDP by 2%, Driving Demand for Energy and Compute in Crypto
Germany”s National Team Prepares for World Cup Qualifiers with Disco Atmosphere
95% of AI Projects Fail in Companies According to MIT
AI in Food & Beverages Market to Surge from $11.08B to $263.80B by 2032
Satya Nadella Supports OpenAI’s $100B Revenue Goal, Highlights AI Funding Needs
