More than two weeks ago, this article appeared in the Wall Street Journal accusing Ivy League institutions in the US as practising discrimination – leaving out Asian students – and casting the attempt by Princeton University attempts to block the government’s release of document that could ‘show discrimination’ in a negative light. Well, I am not persuaded.
Any Club has the right to decide on whom it would admit as its members. All those who are not admitted can claim discrimination. Any subjective decision can be termed arbitrary. There is a fine line.
If Ivy League Schools decided that they would try to lower the percentage of Asian students in their campuses, that is their prerogative.
An educationist whom I know very well and who does not live in the U.S. wrote me this:
Admissions decisions are inherently subjective when raw data between candidates is broadly equal. Global admissions data patterns are naturally subject to external economic, social, political and legal considerations. None of that is defined or definable because those sands are shifting continually.
Total transparency is not possible or even desirable in admissions. Every decision can be questioned on some grounds or other, but schools need some autonomy to make decisions, within the bounds of reason, ethics and the law of the land. Wise students learn soon enough that their Destiny cannot be mapped.
Well, this emphasis on foisting diversity (hard to beat that for an oxymoron) is a manifestation of the virulent and toxic and often ridiculous political correctness that is sweeping through American campuses, reminiscent of the 1960s and 1970s – or is it far worse now?
Read this interview by Jonathan Haidt with Wall Street Journal to figure out what he thinks is driving it.
It is up to you to read this story before or after you read the interview – a free speech area in Los Angeles! Bizarre.