In a recent interview, Malcolm Gladwell, the acclaimed author of The Tipping Point, highlighted the troubling issue of bias against Asian-American and Indian students within Ivy League admissions, particularly at Harvard. While discussing his latest book, Revenge of the Tipping Point, Gladwell criticised Harvard’s admission practices, pointing out what he termed a “bias towards affluent white students.”
He compared Harvard’s admissions process with that of Caltech, a university with a merit-based approach.He observed that the proportion of Asian-American students at Caltech rose significantly, 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. Indian applicants, Gladwell added, would find it even harder to get into Ivy leagues.
Gladwell’s stance underscores a broader societal debate, brought to the fore by a landmark decision from the US Supreme Court, which ruled on the controversial topic of affirmative action that many Asian-Americans felt was targeting them.
The US Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Ruling
In June 2023, the US Supreme Court delivered a significant decision regarding affirmative action in higher education, concluding that race-conscious admissions programmes at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC) violated the Equal Protection Clause. This decision essentially ended the decades-long practice of using racial preferences in university admissions, arguing that such practices perpetuated racial stereotyping and failed to serve a meaningful purpose.
Although the ruling was a victory for those advocating for a merit-based admissions process, it sparked fierce debate. Many advocacy groups had lobbied in favour of racial preferences, despite polls indicating that most Americans opposed using race or ethnicity as a factor in college admissions. Notably, a striking 91.7% of Asian advocacy groups that submitted amicus briefs supported race-conscious admissions, despite polls suggesting that a significant majority of Asian-Americans, particularly those of Indian descent, opposed these policies.
Ivy League Bias
Asian-Americans, and particularly Indians, face unique challenges in Ivy League admissions. Many applicants from this demographic possess stellar academic records and exceptional extracurricular achievements, yet they are often overlooked in favour of less academically qualified candidates from other racial groups. This phenomenon isn’t merely an oversight but an indication of a deeply ingrained bias against Asian and Indian applicants.
The bias stems partly from stereotyping. Admissions officers frequently view Asian applicants, including Indians, as lacking in “character” traits such as leadership or uniqueness. They are often stereotyped as studious, STEM-focused candidates, which leads admissions committees to penalise 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 glaring disconnect exists between the positions of Asian-American advocacy groups and the preferences of the wider Asian-American community. Although 76% of Asian-Americans opposed racial preferences in higher education admissions, 91.7% of advocacy groups filing amicus briefs in support of Harvard and UNC’s race-conscious admissions programmes advocated for such policies. These organisations often operate with financial backing from foundations and corporations and are staffed by individuals who align with left-wing ideologies, which sometimes results in positions that do not reflect the broader community’s desires.
By contrast, grassroots coalitions comprising parents, immigrants, and ordinary citizens are more representative of mainstream Asian-American sentiments. They oppose race-conscious admissions policies and advocate for meritocracy.
How the 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 traits like ‘likability’ and ‘leadership’. This approach, however, disproportionately disadvantages Asian-Americans, particularly those of Indian descent. Despite achieving higher grades and test scores, these applicants are rated lower in ‘personal’ qualities—criteria that are inherently subjective and prone to bias.
Asian-American applicants, including Indians, are frequently perceived as lacking ‘leadership potential’ or being ‘uninteresting,’ which translates into lower qualitative scores. This systemic discrimination is akin to the barriers faced by Jewish students in the early 20th century, when they were subject to quotas limiting their representation in Ivy League institutions.
Gladwell’s remarks were a rare example of a non-partisan political figure making a remark about merit that would’ve been called racist if it came from someone on the political right. Gladwell, in the same interview, argued: “Meritocracy is one of the most beautiful inventions of the 20th century – it is a foundation of a free society.” That meritocratic society cannot be achieved by segregating one group. There’s nothing more profoundly anti-American than that.