Christian majoritarian Democrats hope to bring back the institutionalised racial-religious bias—this harms democracy in the US.
“Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s Under a Christian majoritarian government and party, democracy of the US is in danger—it is openly discriminating not only against the Asian race but Asian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, or Shinto.Worse, this discrimination is increasing the bias against the Indian identity in more ways than one. The judgement cites a 3 December 2022 report that says college admissions consultants try and steer their Asian American clients away from the “so-called typically Asian activities such as Chinese language school, piano and Indian classical instruments.” Further, a 20 June 2023 report states that admission consultants advise that prospective Indian students should not “bother checking the race box on the common application unless you’re Latino or Black.” When institutionalised, through the admission procedures of Harvard, for instance, discrimination against Indian Americans becomes an abomination that had been kept under wraps for decades, fooling the world into thinking that Harvard is the Mecca of merit. With this judgement, we know that is not the case. Further, because 70 percent of its US$ 800 million research funding (that is, more than half-a-billion dollars) comes from the Christian majoritarian federal government, it also exposes how public funds of US taxpayers are financing this disgrace. The US Supreme Court has ended this “morally repugnant racial discrimination practiced by Harvard,” something that is downright un-American.
To fight the entitled, the wealthy, the powerful, compounded with a racial-religious bias against her Indian-Hindu identity and still make it into this university is fighting all the possible odds in an organisation that is allegedly the world’s top intellectual destination.To look at this judgement from another point, if an Indian student gets admission into Harvard on merit, she would likely be the best in her cohort. To fight the entitled, the wealthy, the powerful, compounded with a racial-religious bias against her Indian-Hindu identity and still make it into this university is fighting all the possible odds in an organisation that is allegedly the world’s top intellectual destination. This is a very big deal. It is a different matter that over the past decade, Harvard’s rankings have been falling, from No. 2 in 2013 and 2016 to No. 5 in 2023.
| QS World University Rankings | |
| Year | Ranking |
| 2013 | 2 |
| 2014 | 3 |
| 2015 | 4 |
| 2016 | 2 |
| 2017 | 3 |
| 2018 | 3 |
| 2019 | 3 |
| 2020 | 3 |
| 2021 | 3 |
| 2022 | 5 |
| 2023 | 5 |
Race would be used not as a plus, but as a negative—to discriminate against those racial groups, such as Indian origin students, that were not the beneficiaries of the race-based preference.The fourth pillar (pages 5 and 6) leans on the Grutter v. Bollinger judgement for two supports. One, an illegitimate stereotyping. Admission programmes cannot function on the “belief that minority students always (or even consistently) express some characteristic minority viewpoint on any issue.” And two, that race would be used not as a plus, but as a negative—to discriminate against those racial groups, such as Indian origin students, that were not the beneficiaries of the race-based preference. The solution was a quarter century cap: “The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” It is worth exploring this judgement and placing India’s broken reservation system next to it—constitutionally the two are different, effectively they are united against merit. The fifth pillar examines this 25-year cap (pages 6-8). The Grutter v. Bollinger judgement permitted race-based college admissions “only within the confines of narrow restrictions”. Harvard’s “admissions systems fail each of these criteria.” Worse, Harvard has been using racial categories that are “plainly overbroad (expressing, for example, no concern whether South Asian or East Asian students are adequately represented as “Asian”); arbitrary or undefined (the use of the category “Hiic”); or underinclusive (no category at all for Middle Eastern students).” For a university that also houses the world’s No. 1 law school, this legal illiteracy is astounding. And finally, the sixth pillar concludes with a powerful statement, “Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the colour of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.” A sole question remains: Will Harvard reform its policies or will it nudge its alumni network of politicians and corporate leaders to ‘reform’ the Supreme Court itself? In less than a week, voices from the country’s limited two-party democracy is gathering momentum. “The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions. And I strongly disagree with the Court’s decision,” said President Joe Biden. He is now using vocabulary to smother justice: “Adversity” could become the new tool for discrimination.
It will impact not just Harvard or University of North Carolina but will also extend to all other universities that have been manipulating their admissions processes.“Affirmative action was never a complete answer in the drive towards a more just society. But for generations of students who had been systematically excluded from most of America’s key institutions—it gave us the chance to show we more than deserved a seat at the table,” said former US President Barack Obama, a Harvard Law School alumnus, citing his wife Michelle Obama, another Harvard Law School alumnus, to condemn a judgement that is against Harvard’s discriminatory policies. Conflict of interest could never have been starker. “This is a great day for America,” the Republican Trump campaign said in a statement. “People with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including future greatness for our Country, are finally being rewarded. This is the ruling everyone was waiting and hoping for and the result was amazing.” There is no doubt that this judgement is a step in the right direction. It will impact not just Harvard or University of North Carolina but will also extend to all other universities that have been manipulating their admissions processes. In fact, racial discrimination in admission processes of all universities will come under scrutiny. Outside universities, it will influence the way in which large corporations look at students exiting from these universities. It will make them realise that if ability is any criteria, and there is an Asian student from these universities applying, she is there despite the process being skewed against her, and therefore, on top of the merit list.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Gautam Chikermane is a Vice President at ORF. His areas of research are economics, politics and foreign policy. A Jefferson Fellow (Fall 2001) at the East-West ...
Read More +
PREV
