Excellent point. Asian Americans form an extraordinarily heterogeneous group, spanning all areas of socio-economic status and access to opportunity. Race is an imperfect proxy for what affirmative action attempts to do, which is to normalize circumstantial variables to better assess an individual's potential in the context of his or her environment. Several natural questions follow: 1) what other applicant characteristics better map onto what affirmative action tries to achieve? and 2) if we concede that self-reported race or perceived race is not the right characteristic to adjust for, then how do we create a truly race-blind application process?
Speaking as an Asian-American alumnus of Harvard, I will say that the conversations I've heard in the community are mixed, even among Asians. Most people are aware that discrimination against Asians is a real problem, though they do not believe affirmative action as a principle is at fault; rather, its implementation is imperfect and not nuanced enough. Adding to this debate is the complex piece of how legacy students are treated by admissions, what role money/wealth plays independently of affirmative action, and the overall autonomy and goals of private institutions. And in the end, to what extent should private and public institutions be held liable for how they achieve their diversity goals, and how do you balance this with fairness toward applicants?
Income level seems like a better proxy for overall circumstances than race. Yet discriminating against wealthier customers would inflict damage the university's bottom line.
Speaking as an Asian-American alumnus of Harvard, I will say that the conversations I've heard in the community are mixed, even among Asians. Most people are aware that discrimination against Asians is a real problem, though they do not believe affirmative action as a principle is at fault; rather, its implementation is imperfect and not nuanced enough. Adding to this debate is the complex piece of how legacy students are treated by admissions, what role money/wealth plays independently of affirmative action, and the overall autonomy and goals of private institutions. And in the end, to what extent should private and public institutions be held liable for how they achieve their diversity goals, and how do you balance this with fairness toward applicants?