Jian Li, Asian-America and West College

Much has been written in these pages about Jian Li, the Yale freshman who filed a lawsuit against Princeton for not admitting him despite his excellent academic qualifications. The lengthy pieces in the News and Opinion pages of The Daily Princetonian haven't presented some of the most important aspects of Li's case, however. While Li's particular complaint ought to be dismissed, some of the broader questions that his case raises deserve consideration.

First and foremost, Li never wanted to go here. He told a reporter from The Times of Trenton, "I was actually hoping to be rejected by Princeton University so I could file a civil rights suit." This statement completely undermines his case. Admission decisions are based on more than just test scores; applicants must also submit essays and most are interviewed. Would a student seeking rejection spend hours pouring his heart out into a brilliant essay? Or would he do the bare minimum required — and maybe throw some spelling errors in for good measure? The Admission Office doesn't simply sort applicants by SAT score; they're also looking for students whose strengths extend beyond standardized tests and who have a strong desire to matriculate here. In all likelihood, a student "hoping to be rejected" probably spent little time on his application or his essays. If he failed to demonstrate competence in his writing and if he didn't provide any indication that he cared about attending Princeton, then the admission office was right to reject him.

While Li's case may be spurious, some of his charges are not. Most of the editorial and opinion pieces in the 'Prince' have focused on disputing one narrow claim from Li, namely that affirmative action policies benefit certain racial minority groups while making the admission process more difficult for others, especially Asians. Li's actual lawsuit is far broader in scope: He contends that admission preferences for legacy applicants and recruited athletes unfairly bias the admissions process and hurt qualified Asian-American applicants. This contention has more merit to it, both historically and today at Princeton.

In 1990, the federal Office of Civil Rights investigated Harvard University's admission office. It found that though Asian-Americans had on average higher grades and test scores, they were admitted at a lower rate than white students. Harvard justified this practice by appealing to its preferences for legacies and recruited athletes, which benefited whites more than Asians. The 2005 study by Princeton professors Thomas Espenshade and Chang Chung, cited in Li's complaint, also concluded that having preferences for legacies and athletes decreases the number of Asian-American applicants that a college admits.

There is a de facto higher bar for Asian-American applicants, and it exists for all the wrong reasons. First, it's the result of an obsession with collegiate sports and athletic recruiting which, former Princeton President William Bowen has argued, exists generally to the detriment of the Ivy League. As Bowen has stated "[recruited Ivy athletes] differ more and more from their fellow students; they enter with weaker credentials and tend to underperform academically, [and] increasingly they are seen on campuses as a group apart from their classmates." Second, as Princeton's alumni are overwhelmingly white and relatively well-off, the higher bar exists due to unfair legacy preferences. As the 'Prince' has reported, President Tilghman defends preferences for legacies because the University's endowment and operating budget depend heavily on alumni giving. Thus, instead of Princeton actually having a "need-blind" admissions policy, certain applicants are given an advantage because their families are more affluent than others.

Li got what he wanted out of Princeton: a rejection letter and the basis for a lawsuit. Hopefully the University won't face any legal repercussions over the matter, but West College and Nassau Hall should still consider some of the issues that Li's case raises. Sharply curtailing the advantage given to recruited athletes and legacies would make admission decisions more progressive (by eliminating the benefits of entrenched wealth) and more meritocratic (by emphasizing scholastic over athletic achievement). Wouldn't it be nice if, instead of waiting for Harvard to act, Princeton led the way in adopting these beneficial new policies? Jason Sheltzer '08 is a molecular biology major from St. Davids, Pa. He can be reached at sheltzer@princeton.edu.