Princeton filed a LAWSUIT March 17 to prevent the U.S. Education Department from releasing hundreds of pages of documents related to an investigation into complaints that the University discriminated against Asian and Asian-American students. The department ruled in 2015 that Princeton lawfully considered race as one factor in making admission decisions and that there was insufficient evidence of discrimination.
In its lawsuit, Princeton said the documents — which include demographic data and information about the admission process — contain “highly confidential” information that “would cause competitive harm to the University if disclosed.”
Graduate students approved a REFERENDUM in February calling on the University to divest from private prisons and detention corporations. The vote was 606-60. About 27 percent of graduate students voted.
The Latest
See all
Related News
Remembering Landon Y. Jones ’66, Editor, Author, and Inveterate ‘Ripper’
Friends paid tribute Nov. 15 at a memorial service in the Princeton University Chapel
Princeton to Cut Way Down on Alums’ Free Google Email Storage
A squeeze from Google is prompting Princeton to slice the generous free email storage it offered alumni in the past
Meet Kathy Crow ’89: Philanthropist and Lightning Rod
The former lacrosse standout’s friendship with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas stirred a national controversy
4 Responses
Alis Yoo ’19, Nicholas Wu ’18
7 Years AgoAffirmative Action: A Defense
n March, the University became embroiled in a dispute regarding the confidentiality of using affirmative action in admissions, a practice that a conservative interest group, Students for Fair Admissions (SFA), is portraying as a civil-rights violation against Asian applicants. The University filed a lawsuit to block the release of documents relating to a civil-rights complaint that SFA filed with the Department of Justice (On the Campus, April 12).
There is a pervasive, pernicious media narrative that affirmative action harms Asians. But that is simply not the case. Affirmative action is a positive policy, meant to include minority groups who historically have not had the same educational opportunities due to socioeconomic disadvantages, among other issues. We need to recognize that affirmative action, though it may be unfair, is not a civil-rights violation. A rejection from Princeton University is not the same as disenfranchisement, so let us not conflate the two.
It is far too easy to scapegoat affirmative action for the capriciousness of college admissions. The University’s goal of creating a well-rounded community does not correspond with the applicant’s notion that hard work and accomplishment will automatically lead to admission. Princeton does not owe admission to smart people, but it does have a duty to its current student body to provide the most informative educational experience. Being exposed to diverse worldviews is important to the student body’s intellectual growth outside of the classroom.
Contrary to many narratives, affirmative action can actually help Asians from traditionally disadvantaged subgroups. The Asian Law Caucus’s amicus brief on Fisher v. University of Texas finds that there are “large disparities in educational attainment among Asian American ethnic groups ... . The educational attainment of Hmong, Cambodian, Laotian, and Vietnamese Americans is the lowest among Asian American ethnic groups and similar to those of Latinos and African Americans.”
The most difficult step is seeing past how much it seems we stand to lose and consider how much affirmative action benefits our fellow people of color. In an issue as personal and important to the Asian community as education, the stakes are high, and rejection seems hard to justify when you have worked so hard. We need to move beyond assigning an agenda to black, Latinx, and Native American students. They are not stealing spots; they are not the culprit. The continuous dispute over affirmative action should compel us to reflect on whom we are pointing our animosity toward and how we position ourselves among other ethnicities.
John W. Minton Jr. ’50
7 Years AgoSelecting the Best Freshman Class
Published online July 6, 2017
My compliments to Alis Yoo ’19 and Nicholas Wu ’18 on their thoughtful commentary (Inbox, May 17). Is it affirmative action, diversity, or social engineering, or is it a convenient multiple-choice word game for any agreeing or opposing group when the issue is raised? I am suspicious of any University policy when undefined phrases such as human equality, people of color, and fairness are used to justify policymaking decisions.
As stated in earlier commentary, I am 100 percent in favor of equality of opportunity and unalterably opposed to equality of results. The administration believes that diversity is the correct path to take and will enhance the educational experience for all at my alma mater, the inference being that all who came before found something missing in their experience at Princeton. Everything that I experienced during my four years was enhancing, no matter the lesson itself. My life has been filled with a diversity of wonderful experiences that are part of a lifetime of learning. I am still learning.
It is important for Princeton University and the trustees to clearly define all of the qualifications, overt and covert, for admission and to apply them equally or unequally without fear or favor. I believe that admitting those who are best qualified and have met the University’s criteria for admission should be offered a place in the next freshman class. This will produce the better result.
John W. Minton Jr. ’50
7 Years AgoSelecting the Best Freshman Class
Published online Oct. 23, 2017
My compliments to Alis Yoo ’19 and Nicholas Wu ’18 on their thoughtful commentary (Inbox, May 17). Is it affirmative action, diversity, or social engineering, or is it a convenient multiple-choice word game for any agreeing or opposing group when the issue is raised? I am suspicious of any University policy when undefined phrases such as human equality, people of color, and fairness are used to justify policymaking decisions.
As stated in earlier commentary, I am 100 percent in favor of equality of opportunity and unalterably opposed to equality of results. The administration believes that diversity is the correct path to take and will enhance the educational experience for all at my alma mater, the inference being that all who came before found something missing in their experience at Princeton. Everything that I experienced during my four years was enhancing, no matter the lesson itself. My life has been filled with a diversity of wonderful experiences that are part of a lifetime of learning. I am still learning.
It is important for Princeton University and the trustees to clearly define all of the qualifications, overt and covert, for admission and to apply them equally or unequally without fear or favor. I believe that admitting those who are best qualified and have met the University’s criteria for admission should be offered a place in the next freshman class. This will produce the better result.
Norman Ravitch *62
7 Years AgoPrograms to give preference...
Programs to give preference to certain disadvantaged groups sound good and moral. But more often programs to give preference in the past have been designed to block the admission of certain groups: in America at the best schools for many years prior to the 1960's, Jews and blacks were put on a numerus clausus. Poland before WWII even made Jews at universities sit on special benches during lectures. Most countries had numeral limits on Jewish admissions. Positive affirmative action is designed to do good, not evil. But good for some can be resented as evil by others. And hypocrisy can often be found in the finest of places. The only answer is preference for excellence, and excellence properly defined.
The noted writer and publisher Clifton Fadiman was told at Columbia University many years ago that they could not give him a faculty position because they had already given the "position for Jews" to Lawrence Trilling! This was common enough at one time in our past. I personally during 38 years of university teaching have encountered many unqualified people given faculty position for racial and other identity reasons. I remember, for example, one colleague in Russian history saying that a person of Polish ancestry could not teach Russian history objectively. The Polish applicant as a result was dropped from consideration. The colleague who made this claim had various political positions I would have found objectionable for a faculty member,but his background was not viewed as negatively by others as by me. Sauce for the goose ... etc.