←back to thread

Asian American Discrimination in Harvard Admissions [pdf]

(public.econ.duke.edu)
376 points undefined1 | 4 comments | 25 Apr 20 00:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
ralusek ◴[25 Apr 20 04:25 UTC] No.22975553[source]▶
Asians, particularly Asian men, have the most active obstacles that manifest on _basis of their race_ than any other minority group in the US. If you are an individual given a situation, all things else considered equal (attractiveness, intelligence, parenting, culture, neighborhood, familial wealth, etc), being Asian will give you a harder time than any other racial/ethnic characteristic in terms of pursuing a good life. That doesn't mean that Asians as a collective will net worse results than black people as a collective, because collectively, parenting, culture, neighborhoods, familial wealth, etc, are not at all comparable between those groups. But if you are the same exact individual with the same exact circumstances, and you could choose to be black or Asian, you would be better off choosing to be black.

You want to get into a good school? Diversity programs and affirmative action, above board, use the basis of your race to actively advantage you in your admittance if you are black, and do the exact opposite if you are Asian. Quotas for racial makeups almost always necessarily and uniquely disadvantage Asians. Because of being so overrepresented in achievements relative to their makeup of the population, any quota that goes off of anything other than their meritorious accomplishments necessarily puts an arbitrary scarcity on available opportunities for them.

You want to get a good job? Sure, you might find certain employers in particular regions that may be discriminatory on the basis of race to black individuals. But large, highly desirable companies nearly unilaterally have diversity hiring practices that likewise greatly advantage black individuals relative to those who would otherwise hold comparable characteristics to individuals from other populations. YouTube famously had reports from their hiring department that a hold was issued on the hiring of white and Asian individuals for the remainder of some time period in order to ensure that diversity quotas were satisfied. Being Asian in a "sea of hyper-qualified Asian applicants" _is_ a distinct disadvantage, and the degree of competence needed to stand out from a group that is already associated with high achievement is uniquely unfair.

What about dating? I have worked in this space. Every dating app shows the same thing: Asian men and black women are the least desirable groups for getting responses or being sought after, by quite a bit. I have worked in this space, and what is admittedly anecdotal, I have heard "I'm just not attracted to Asian guys," on many occasions. There doesn't seem to be any taboo in this particular area, it doesn't seem to imply closed-mindedness. I have _never_, _ever_, heard somebody say "I'm just not attracted to black guys," in my personal or professional life. I believe that this would be met with a great deal of social pushback. There seems to be a willingness for people to say things about Asians that is just not felt in other ethnic groups, and it possibly stems from this idea that it's safe to be "punching up."

Lastly I just think there is a general cultural obsession with racial injustices which completely casts Asians aside due to their collective competencies. Think of all of the hullabaloo regarding the fact that there isn't enough black representation in the Academy Awards, regardless of (last I checked) the makeup of Oscars in the last few decades has been about 10% awarded to black individuals, which is about what their 13% of the population in the US would lead you to expect. Asian actors? Something on the order of 4. Nobody cares.

I'm not Asian. I hate racial politics, but I just find it particularly absurd that Asians are ostensibly cast aside in this game when they strike me as having the most to complain about. Most other cases of supposed injustice stem from people comparing the outcomes of two racial populations, and subsequently stipulating that the differences must be due to racism. For the examples I've stated, I'm talking about things that actually net different outcomes for individuals on the basis of their race.

replies(8): >>22975659 #>>22975673 #>>22975704 #>>22975705 #>>22975767 #>>22975783 #>>22975910 #>>22976700 #
bruceb ◴[25 Apr 20 04:59 UTC] No.22975705[source]▶
The dating part is a complex situation that is a minefield which can almost never be discussed without spiraling out of control.

But comparing black and Asian in the US is laughable. On life expectancy, earnings, education etc is completely one-sided.

replies(1): >>22976080 #
1. ralusek ◴[25 Apr 20 06:19 UTC] No.22976080[source]▶
Life expectancy, earnings, education of the populations at large? That isn't evidence of racism, these populations don't engage in remotely comparable behaviors, have remotely comparable histories, or cultures. I'm talking about situations that are specifically and actively differentiated _due to_ race alone.

If Asians are approved for bank loans at higher rates than black people, that doesn't mean that it's harder to get a loan as a black person than it is as an Asian person. What I am talking about is that if you were a black person with a given credit score, with a given salary, capital, etc, and you were less likely to get a loan than an Asian with exactly the same criteria, only then would this be you being discriminated against on the basis of your race.

When talking about discrimination against Asians, the examples I'm giving are ones in which the Asian individual can meet or surpass all of the objective criteria necessary for an outcome, but their race is the active factor that harms them. Last I read, if Ivy Leagues were unaware of any racial identifiers, and simply had the objective criteria of SAT scores, GPA, extra-curricular achievements, Asians would make up 40% of their universities. When we say that black Americans have a shorter life expectancy, earnings, or education do you understand how that isn't remotely comparable? You haven't controlled for anything. If you say that there is an epidemic of black students not being admitted to schools despite having identical qualifications as other applicants, only then are you bringing up a comparable example to what I'm discussing.

replies(2): >>22976400 #>>22976422 #
2. jacobolus ◴[25 Apr 20 07:32 UTC] No.22976400[source]▶
> if you were a black person with a given credit score, with a given salary, capital, etc, and you were less likely to get a loan than an Asian with exactly the same criteria,

This experiment has been done multiple times, and yes this is exactly what happens. In business loans, home loans, ...

See e.g. https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/aotbe.pdf for paired tests comparing white/black and white/hispanic shoppers, done by HUD. I have seen similar tests in the past which asian shoppers, but you’ll have to search around a bit.

replies(1): >>22976725 #
3. mirimir ◴[25 Apr 20 07:35 UTC] No.22976422[source]▶
> Last I read, if Ivy Leagues were unaware of any racial identifiers, and simply had the objective criteria of SAT scores, GPA, extra-curricular achievements, Asians would make up 40% of their universities.

Of course. Because academic achievement is highly valued in Asian cultures. I suspect that the situation for Jews is similar, for the same reason.

So sure, universities could just ignore "race" entirely. But then historically disadvantaged groups would be underrepresented. And that would perpetuate the disadvantaged status for those groups.

So how would that be just?

Arguably it's fairest to weight acceptance criteria to admit students in proportion to their groups' population share. And yes, I agree that it sucks if you're Asian, Jewish, or whatever other groups are affected.

And I also get that it's gameable. Someone who's part Asian or Jewish, and part (even a little) Black, would identify as Black. Applicants might even use DNA test data.

4. ralusek ◴[25 Apr 20 08:54 UTC] No.22976725[source]▶
That study looks like it might do a good job of controlling for the relevant factors, although the thing that seems to be the most difficult to control for is credit. It makes some references to credit history, but the most rigorous study I had seen in the past (https://www.revealnews.org/article/for-people-of-color-banks...) had failed to take credit history into account, which the lenders then claimed was the source of the discrepancy that they had found. I think with the pair model in the study you referenced, it would be feasible to have applicants paired together based off of information they have provided themselves, including credit, although I'd like to hear more about it/what tolerances they allowed for/what kind of discrepancies were found in the outcomes.

I admit that I'm also disinclined to believe that lenders are in any way concerned with making decisions according to any other criteria than what would return them the highest profits, but I will take a look in greater detail at the study you referenced. It seems exceedingly idiotic to me that lenders would take a datapoint as arbitrarily useless as race into consideration, but I suppose the same could be said for universities taking less qualified applicants for the same reason. Obviously, this would be precisely the sort of discrimination that I would take serious issue with, if present, so I'll be make sure to look into the study. Thanks for the reference. There is a LOT of piss-poor analysis into this issue that controls for virtually nothing, and typical reporting will very often simply differentiate average loan sizes to people of ethnicities, likelihood to get loan approvals, etc, as just baseline differences between populations.

I understand if lenders want to keep their evaluation process secretive, as there could theoretically be a competitive advantage in the manner in which they calculate risk, but I think that the way this stuff is audited could be done in a much clearer fashion. Maybe something like "lenders have to publicly disclose all features they take into consideration in their approval model." And then some independent audit should run some random sample set of their approvals through a sensible model, and then the banks would have to justify what it is in their model that produces any major differences in approval rates. The mechanisms in place to make sure that this stuff is being done appropriately seem like they're horribly designed.