Harvard admissions: The institutional racism the left doesn't want to talk about

As I pointed out recently, a lawsuit filed against Harvard by a group called Students for Fair Admissions argues that the school artificially limits the number of Asians it admits each year by down-rating Asian applicants on personal qualities compared to members of other races. Today the NY Times published an opinion piece on the topic which points out that the kids who are suffering for the sake of “diversity” are real people who deserve a lot better than being denigrated as generic drones.

When the assistant principal of a high-performing prep school was shown evidence that white students from her school were twice as likely to gain admission as Asian students during a deposition, she began to cry. Asked why, she replied, “Because these numbers make it seem like there’s discrimination, and I love these kids, and I know how hard they work. So these just look like numbers to all you guys, but I see their faces.”

Harvard only seems to see their faces as a problem for its admissions office. The mechanism by which the school holds these hard-working kids back ought to outrage every American concerned with equality and racism, but of course it does not. This is an issue the left in this country does not want to discuss. They are content, apparently, to let this system continue in perpetuity, all for the greater good:

Harvard evaluated applicants on the extent to which they possessed the following traits: likability, helpfulness, courage, kindness, positive personality, people like to be around them, the person is widely respected. Asian-Americans, who had the highest scores in both the academic and extracurricular ratings, lagged far behind all other racial groups in the degree to which they received high ratings on the personality score.

“Asian-American applicants receive a 2 or better on the personal score more than 20% of the time only in the top academic index decile. By contrast, white applicants receive a 2 or better on the personal score more than 20% of the time in the top six deciles,” wrote Mr. Arcidiacono. “Hispanics receive such personal scores more than 20% of the time in the top seven deciles, and African Americans receive such scores more than 20% of the time in the top eight deciles.”…

Mr. Arcidiacono found that an otherwise identical applicant bearing an Asian-American male identity with a 25 percent chance of admission would have a 32 percent chance of admission if he were white, a 77 percent chance of admission if he were Hispanic, and a 95 percent chance of admission if he were black.

There’s no way to justify this unless you actually believe Asian American students are generally deficient in positive personal qualities in ways that other races are not. My personal experience is that that’s not at all the case. I don’t believe anyone at Harvard really believes it either but now that they’ve been sued over this they have no choice but to keep up the act:

In the face of this challenge, Harvard has resorted to the desperate expedient of promulgating racial stereotypes. In denying that it has engaged in racial balancing at the expense of Asian-Americans, Harvard has put itself in the morally untenable position of affirming a brazen falsehood.

Harvard’s lawyers will soon tell the highest court in the land that Casey Pedrick’s Asian students are less respected because they are less likable, less courageous, and less kind than all other applicants. The university has decided that this is necessary for the greater good. The reality is that it is a carefully considered act of slander.

The solution to the disproportionate success of Asian students is the emulation of their methods by other groups, not the stealth slander of their personal qualities by school bureaucrats looking to rig the outcome into some artificial semblance of diversity. In short, if other races want to be accepted at higher rates, they should be expected to work for it.