A recent report, authored in part by a Princeton professor, claims that universities favor "international" black students and recent immigrants over "native" blacks whose ancestors have lived in the United States for several generations. The implications of this study touch upon fundamental issues surrounding race, diversity and affirmative action policies in the United States. In view of these findings, the University's Office of Admission should modify its application process so as to better reflect more subtle distinctions within broad racial categories. For example, the application could provide a distinction between "international black" and "African-American" applicants. To the extent that such information is currently part of the admissions process, additional distinctions can help the University build a diverse student-body reflecting its institutional goals and social responsibilities.
Such a change would have two principal benefits. First, whatever the admissions office's goals in considering race and diversity, it would be more able to achieve those goals given a more precise understanding of racial and social backgrounds. While any racial classification, even when choosing between "native" and "immigrant" black, does not do justice to the texture and nuance of the ethnic and socioeconomic history of an individual, the Office of Admission would gain by having more definite information in an imperfect environment.
Second, observers would have a clearer idea of the true composition of Princeton's diversity. When the University trumpets the racial breakdown of its latest matriculating class, it can create perceptions, intentional or not, that distort reality. This plan would minimize those distortions and hold the University to a higher standard when it wants to make claims about its progress on creating a diverse community.
To that end, the Office of Admission should release more nuanced statistics regarding each admitted class, using information it already collects. Instead of merely stating that a certain percentage of students are international, the University should also detail how many are children of American expatriates, born in the United States or satisfy other meaningful measures of diversity. The percentage of Asian students should be given more context by explaining what portion are international or American-born. Such measures are but a few ways the University can more meaningfully represent itself.
Extra racial classifications can become excessive. But as the emerging debate over the recent report demonstrates, there is a need for more precision.
Read More
Keep academic authority in human hands
Lily Halbert-AlexanderThe Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
The Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
What do we owe society for a Princeton education?
Jia Cheng ShenThe social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
The social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
Notes from a so-called enemy’s classroom
Jennifer JenningsIt wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.
It wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.