Investigation into alleged admissions bias expands
The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has broadened its investigation into a federal complaint filed in August 2006 by an applicant to the University who was denied admission. Jian Li claimed in the complaint that he was rejected because he is Asian.
The University announced Tuesday that it plans to provide information to aid the OCR in the investigation, which will examine the admissions procedures used to admit the Class of 2010. This significantly widens the range of the inquiry, which had previously focused solely on the decision-making process behind Li's rejection.
Despite receiving a perfect SAT score of 2400 and having several other educational achievements on his record, Li was denied admission at Harvard, MIT, Penn and Stanford in addition to his rejection from Princeton. Li has not filed similar complaints against these universities.
The OCR notified the University in January of its decision to proceed with the broader inquiry, called a "compliance review," Department of Education spokesman Jim Bradshaw said in an interview.
In a letter to members of the New Jersey Congressional delegation, the OCR's chief civil rights attorney, Timothy Blanchard, wrote that the review will investigate "whether the University discriminates against Asians, on the basis of race or national origin, in its admissions process, in violation of Title VI" of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VI prohibits racial discrimination in "any education program ... operated by a recipient of Federal financial assistance" from the Department of Education, Blanchard explained in the letter.
Both Bradshaw and University spokeswoman Cass Cliatt ’96 declined to comment on the nature of the information provided by the University to the OCR. Bradshaw said, however, that "the review expands the inquiry to include all Asian-American applicants and covers the original individual allegation."
University officials have denied any bias against Li in the admissions process. Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye said soon after the 2006 filing of the complaint that "the numbers don't indicate [discrimination]," and Cliatt maintained that "Princeton does not discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin, and our admission policy is in full compliance with Title VI of the federal law" in a statement released Tuesday evening.
In an e-mail to The Daily Princetonian, Li expressed satisfaction with the new direction the inquiry he initiated is taking. "The Office for Civil Right[s'] decision to broaden its investigation is good news for those who oppose the use of racial preferences in college admissions," Li said.
"I filed the complaint not for my own sake, but rather to hold Princeton accountable for racially discriminatory standards," he added. "Therefore, I had hoped from the start that the scope of the complaint would be much wider than my individual case."
Cliatt, on the other hand, said that the University does not believe there is "any merit" to Li's complaint.
"We're very confident about our admissions policy, and we welcome the opportunity to explain to [the] OCR how we do it," Cliatt said.
Though Cliatt said that "there is no factor that is assigned a fixed weight" in the admissions process, she acknowledged that "race is one component that factors into" the decision.
Bradshaw said that OCR opening the investigation "in no way implies that the OCR has made a determination on the merits of the complaint," and that the office will proceed in the investigation as "a neutral fact finder."
But Scott Jaschik, editor of Inside Higher Ed, suggested that the OCR was downplaying the significance of the move.
"At the very least, the shift suggests that the government does not view the complaint as frivolous," Jaschik wrote in an analysis of the investigation. "OCR regularly shuts down complaint investigations ... and the agency has limited resources for compliance reviews. Compliance reviews ... tend to take place on issues that the department believes are important."
If the OCR finds that the University is not in compliance with the Civil Rights Act, the office will try to reach a settlement with the University before taking more serious measures. "In nearly all cases, we are able to reach settlement agreements with schools short of moving to enforcement," Bradshaw said. "However, if an institution refuses to comply with the civil rights laws, enforcement options do exist."
According to the OCR's case processing manual, "enforcement actions" can include termination of financial assistance to the university or referral to the Department of Justice for judicial proceedings.
After his rejection from Princeton, Li enrolled at Yale in fall 2006. That fall, Li told the ‘Prince' that he was "fine" at Yale, but he has since transferred to Harvard. Li declined to comment on his transfer or his reasons for not filing complaints against the other universities that rejected him.
In 2006, Rapelye said that Li's application was not as impressive as he alleges. "Many others had far better qualifications," she said, adding that "his outside activities were not all that outstanding."
Li said in the e-mail, though, that his placement on the University's waitlist before ultimately being rejected undermines Rapelye's claim.
"Princeton had initially waitlisted my application," Li said. "So if it were not for a yield which was higher than expected, the admissions office very well may have admitted a candidate whose ‘outside activities were not all that outstanding.' "
Digg it!
Share on Facebook
Post to Del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Reader Comments
View all 296 comments on "Investigation into alleged admissions bias expands".
To the poster who said, [Jian Li, please stop posting under your "Yale College Dad" pseudonym. If you're going to make that big a deal about getting denied from Princeton, at least be man enough to use your own name.] ======================================================= Yale College Dad is NOT Jian Li or is he related to Jian Li. YCD has never met Jian Li. Jian Li does not need to post on this site. His complaint against Princeton with the OCR and its broadening of the investigation of Princeton's admissions office is self-explanatory. Jian Li is at Harvard College and he is quite happy there. This complaint is NOT ABOUT Jian Li. It is about the alleged discrimination against Asian American applicants to Princeton based on RACE and ETHNICITY. Jian Li is just an "after thought" in this complaint, which will have far reaching consequences if the complaint is ruled in his favor. You must understand this simple point.
From John Rosenberg's site, "Discriminations".......http://www.discriminations.us/2008/07/princeton_receives_weekly_chut.html ======================================================================= Princeton Receives Weekly Chutzpah Award “What weekly chutzpah award?” you may well ask. You’re right. At the moment DISCRIMINATIONS doesn’t bestow a weekly chutzpah award, but if it did this week’s would go to Princeton......... Regular readers will be aware of Jian Li’s complaint that Princeton discriminates against Asian applicants by holding them to a higher standard than others, a case I discussed here. Li’s complaint is being investigated by the Department of Education, and in fact has been broadened, causing nervous jitters across all Ivy Leaguedom........ Today’s Trenton Star Ledger has an article about Li’s case today that avoids most common pitfalls of mainstream media news coverage of racial preferences ... except this one: author Ana M. Alaya writes:////// For decades, critics of affirmative action have contended elite colleges, in their zeal to form racially diverse student bodies, have discriminated against top white applicants....... In a twist on that long-running feud, federal authorities are investigating an allegation that Princeton University discriminates against Asian-American applicants by accepting black and Hispanic students with lower entrance scores........ At the heart of both arguments lies the question of whether and how colleges should consider race when choosing a class....//////// But there is no new “twist” here; there is only one argument, not two: awarding benefits or burdens based on race is wrong, no matter who receives either burden or benefit. Ms. Alaya’s contrary assertion is rather like arguing that opposition to the state awarding preferential treatment to Jews and Catholics is really two arguments, rather than one argument based on the principle of separation of church and state........ But that slip pales into insignificance compared to the following remark that earned Princeton the much un-coveted DISCRIMINATIONS Chutzpah of the Week Award (or would if there were such an award): Princeton, for its part, denies using quotas. The university declined, however, to release admissions data broken down by race and test scores, spokeswoman Cass Cliatt said, “because we don’t want anyone to make the mistake that we make admissions decisions by category.” Translated from diversity-speak, what Ms. Cass Cliatt is saying on behalf of Princeton is that the release of admissions data revealing that Asian applicants had to jump over a much higher hurdle might cause the gullible public to make the “mistake” of concluding that ... Asian applicants had to jump over a much higher hurdle. Nevertheless, it’s still not clear exactly why Princeton is afraid to release this data, since it claims to believe that discriminating against Asians is not really discrimination....... A commitment to “acting affirmatively to ensure diversity,” Cliatt said, is not the same as discriminating....... The problem here, as most people not entwined in the “diversity” industry and rationale can see, is that at places like Princeton “acting affirmatively to ensure diversity” requires acting negatively when evaluating the applications of a whole host of people like Jian Li........ But wait! There’s more entertainment from Ms. Cass Cliatt of Princeton........ At Princeton, race is one factor, including socioeconomic background, extracurricular talents and academic record, considered during the admissions process, Cliatt said. Building a diverse class is like forming an “or chestra,” that may need different talents from year to year, she added......... Excuse me, but don’t most orchestras have, well, quotas for their string, wind, percussion, etc., sections (or are these only “goals”?)?...... In short, if words have meaning Princeton believes that choosing some applicants and rejecting others on the basis of their race or ethnicity is no different from filling a violin vacancy with a violinist....... Despite decades of tutelage to the contrary from Princeton et. al., liberals, Democrats, etc., most Americans continue to march to the tune of a different drummer, believing that everyone should be treated without regard to their race or ethnicity. Being black, white, Asian, Hispanic, or whatever, is simply not the same as playing an oboe or plucking a guitar. And that’s not just whistlin Dixie. ======================================================= Posted by John Rosenberg on July 13, 2008 5:26 PM | Permalink