Asian-Americans II

To The Editors of The Crimson:

I would like to commend Spencer Hsu for his February 11 editorial on Asian-American admissions. As Hsu astutely observes, it is unrealistic to attribute the disparity between white and Asian-American admissions rates to a deliberate, systematic quota system. Those who look for such a system are not only wasting their time but also draw attention away from the real, subtle problems of discrimination inherent in our universities and other aspects of our society. Such persons make the same faulty and dangerous assumptions as do Harvard University and persons like William Pao, who believe that the absence of specifically anti-minority policies amounts to an absolution from the charge of discrimination. University policies such as admissions preference to "legacies" are not targeted against any group, but by favoring wealthy white Americans, they are obviously a de facto form of discrimination, and one which discriminated not only against Asian-Americans, but against all minorities and underpriveleged individuals. Furthermore, by favoring extremely wealthy families who once dominated Harvard, the "legacy" policy undermines the principle of admission blind to financial need. That the University uses the "legacy" policy to "prove" that the Admissions Office does not discriminate is remarkably ironic, if not hypocritical.

Moreover, the University statement which refutes the existence of a quota raises a much broader issue than that of racial discrimination. Preference to legacies and to athletes lie within the University's legal rights as a corporation, but conflict with the University's responsiblities as a world leader in education. The selfishness of persons who, like David Yu, defend the "legacy" policy (February 12) is appalling. "As a future alumnus," he defends the policy, but did he support it as an applicant four years ago? University favoritism to "legacies" perpetuates, even validates, an attitude like Yu's: one does not earn, but in fact buys a place at Harvard, and that place is thereafter hereditary--that Harvard is some sort of elite "club."

The only apparent justifications for "legacy" policies are nepotism and solicitation of donations. If there are other reasons, let the University produce them. If Harvard claims that this favoritism is not intended to raise donations or to perpetuate the "old boy network," then the University has no justification for it at all. If the discriminatory, educationally unjustifiable anachronism of "legacy" is only a necessary financial evil, let the University acknowledge that fact--at least to itself, if not to the public--rather than use "legacy" favoritism as a defense against criticism. Thomas Wuil Joo '89