CAROLINE writes:

This Washington Post article about the recent college admissions hoax involving a Korean math prodigy just illustrates the wide schism between Asian values and that of the (late) West. I find myself agreeing with the Anti-globalist Expatriate’s analysis of Asia. I don’t think it’s good to have so many foreigners at our colleges and high schools. What about our own people? Isn’t a place at an elite (or other) college a limited commodity? Shouldn’t Americans be at American colleges and university? I do declare, when I go to Cornell, I often think that I’m in Seoul.

For one thing, because we allow so many foreign students to come here, there is no incentive for Asians to improve their own schools. For another, I believe they don’t care as much about the quality of American schools, just that they get a diploma from an American/European school. It’s a status symbol in Asia.

Laura writes:

Thank you for writing.

The reason for pointing these incidents out is not to demonize Asians or suggest they are intrinsically inferior, but to note that when large numbers of Asians come to the West, they bring not only their strengths but their weaknesses. We are constantly told that multiculturalism only brings good.

— Comments —

Tyro writes:

Our elite colleges are international institutions whose job is to recruit the best minds from all over the world. Even given this, the percentage of international students at elite colleges is about 10% or less.

American students of Asian and Jewish background are very heavily represented at elite colleges because they have extremely strong academic credentials that exceed that of most other applicants. I myself grew up in a heavily white town, and the academic accomplishments of those classmates as high school students were much less impressive than that of many of the Asian American students from other towns that I later went to high school with. It has been a relatively consistent feature that those who take intellectual pursuits and academic achievement seriously will go on to get admitted to elite colleges at higher rates than those who do not.

Laura writes:

I reject your view of universities as globalist institutions. Also, your figures don’t take into account the reality. While only 10 percent or so may be “international,” many more are recent immigrants or the children of recent immigrants.

At Stanford, white American students are a minority, at 36 percent of the incoming freshman class. At Princeton, in 2014-2015, 21 percent of the student body was Asian American and an additional 11 percent was “international students,” of which a significant number were Asian. At Cornell, Asian-American students are 16.5 percent and international students, of which many are Asian, are 11.3 percent.

Let me be clear: I don’t resent Asians, either recent immigrants or those on student visas, for seeking spots in American universities. I don’t resent them at all and believe it is wrong to have any hostility toward them. I do, however, entirely disagree with the idea that our universities belong to the world and I guarantee you that if those who built the endowments of these institutions in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries were asked if they would  like them to serve large numbers of students from China and Latin America and would like recruiters to travel every year to Japan and Brazil to seek the best and brightest (who just happen to be from the wealthy sectors of these countries who can afford to pay full freight), while denying spots to smart and hard-working Americans, they would say no. The very idea would be preposterous. They would say no, not because they were racist or hostile to other cultures — in fact, one outstanding feature of these universities is that they have always inculcated in Americans an appreciation for other cultures  — but because they were not just interested in creating super-smart people or the best careerists. They were interested in transmitting a culture. The purpose of a university is to transmit a culture.

I assume you believe that African universities should be open to the best and brightest minds. If they so happen to be American, the Africans should step aside. The endowments of these schools should be used to educate Americans.

You write:

I myself grew up in a heavily white town, and the academic accomplishments of those classmates as high school students were much less impressive than that of many of the Asian American students from other towns that I later went to high school with. It has been a relatively consistent feature that those who take intellectual pursuits and academic achievement seriously will go on to get admitted to elite colleges at higher rates than those who do not.

There’s something intangible involved in cultural identity. I wonder how many of those Asian students were interested — truly interested — in, say, Shakespeare or the history of the Civil War or the architecture of European cathedrals or Ancient Greece or the Latin language. These are “intellectual pursuits” too. Do you honestly think our culture can be preserved when, say, more than 40 percent of students at our elite schools don’t even identify with it?

Do you honestly believe there are not American students who are smart enough to do well in those ten percent of spots that go to international students? Of the tens of thousands of Americans who are turned down, do you think they just couldn’t cut it at these schools? I wonder how these institutions were formed in the first place, given that we just can’t produce smart students to fill them.

Anonymous writes:

I heard that UMBC – University of Maryland, Baltimore County – stands for “You Must Be Chinese.”

Tyro writes:

Children of immigrants are American. The population of international students at elite colleges always remains very low compared to international demand, but the dispute here seems to be over who is a “real American,” whereby students of Asian descent somehow are not.

As far as children of recent immigrations having an interest in learning Latin or Shakespeare, etc., in fact many of them do have such an interest, along with classical music and other such things because they are signifiers of intellectualism: things that those with more secure economic and social places in American life can feel free to ignore. From my time in high school, there was an intellectual hierarchy of achievement that you could detect and understand: studying German, French, and Latin were considered more prestigious than Spanish. Studying Shakespeare more prestigious than American Literature. Studying Chemistry and Physics more prestigious than Biology. Those focused on academic achievement (and many of these students were Asian) understood that intellectual hierarchy and made sure to achieve in it, above those who did not prioritize such studies. This was something colleges grappled with early on when they set up rubrics of merit to decide whom to admit and realized that those who were most qualified under those rubrics turned out to be different than those who they expected (this controversy first sprung up with children of Jewish immigrants who came from traditions of both intellectual achievement and hard work).

America is a profoundly anti-intellectual society, in part because our national wealth means that citizens do not have to be intellectual or educated to get ahead in life: so those who have more intellectual determination and less social security to fall back on rise to the top in an academic environment. I do not like this undercurrent of resentment that some people who don’t look exactly like you are able to achieve in ways that you and your peers don’t want to.

Laura writes:

There may be people who resent Asians for their skills and talents. I am not one of them. However, accusations of resentment are difficult to disprove, which is one reason why, I believe, they are so often made. What I do resent, most definitely resent, is the suggestion that unless Americans passively submit to the radical transformation of their institutions and culture because our government and businesses (including colleges) have selfishly opened up our borders to mass immigration — not reasonable, proportionate, sane immigration, but mass, transformative, unprecedented immigration from non-Western countries — they are white trash bigots who are jealous and can’t face their own shortcomings. I do resent being told that somehow — quite preposterously — those who notice and question this transformation have a neurotic disdain for the different appearance of others, as if race and ethnicity were merely pigmentation and some physical characteristics, rather than the vital forms and inner variety God created, the historic communities that have passed through time together and shared a common identity, which all human beings recognize intuitively as a collective essence.

I don’t know much about higher education in Japan, but let’s just say for the sake of argument that Japan has a number of elite institutions that are hundreds of years old and have passed on Japanese culture and art, as well as educated students in the sciences. Let’s say that for commercial, political and ideological reasons, Japan’s borders are opened to millions of Americans so that Japan can become a new globalist society. Let’s say that over time, more than 50 percent of the students at these institutions are not of Japanese descent but are white Americans (I realize that Asian students do not comprise more than 50 percent of our elite universities, but people who are not of European descent do come close to that percentage.) First, do you seriously believe that even though many of the Americans may be intellectually interested in Japanese culture and some may even be avid fans of it, that they feel the same sense of participation in it that the Japanese feel and the same desire to protect and further it that the Japanese themselves feel? Or do you think the Americans would, while they are studying at Japan’s universities, want to learn about their own cultural heritage and would gradually over time advocate the transformation of the curriculum so that Japanese heritage is merely one offering among a menu of equally valued cultural traditions? I guess you believe it wouldn’t matter and if you somehow even switched 90 percent of the Japanese population with Anglo Saxon Americans, it would still be Japan because the important thing is whether the Americans have official residency in Japan and pay taxes.

This would never happen, of course. The Japanese would never let it happen. They actually believe in themselves as a people — and don’t feel that it’s a great moral crime to do so or that love of one’s own is somehow hate of others.

Many East Asians in America definitely have an appreciation for Western culture, particularly classical music. There are many cultured Asians. I have never met an Asian with a genuine and avid interest in our literature, distinct from fulfilling the highest college admission requirements at high schools, but I’m sure some exist. I have heard Asians students express the idea that studying literature is a waste of time. But that is only personal observation. I do believe, however, that Asians (I’m speaking broadly here without acknowledging the great deal of variety among Asians) bring a different mentality to education, a mentality and way of being that is all their own, that has both shortcomings and strengths, but all in all represents a different culture under which Western culture must more and more give way because of the increasing percentage of Asians.

You write:

America is a profoundly anti-intellectual society, in part because our national wealth means that citizens do not have to be intellectual or educated to get ahead in life: so those who have more intellectual determination and less social security to fall back on rise to the top in an academic environment.

In every culture, those interested in high art are a small minority. However, this minority manages to convey the story of a civilization to those who, say, will never read Shakespeare or listen to Bach. That’s what a people are: a collective story. Asians are Americans if America is an amalgam of rights and basic civic obligations. They are Americans in the sense that they are our neighbors, coworkers and friends whom we can love and cherish for their individuality and stellar qualities. They are part of our personal stories. They may even be our best friends or husbands and wives. However, they themselves, I maintain, will always feel part of their own civilizational story, as well as part of globalist, pop culture America.  They will want to know that story and perpetuate it in some way. In that sense, they are not American, and never will be.

Laura adds [June, 25, 2015]:

Or another way of considering it is that they may be a distinct nation(s) within America.

WF writes from Cleveland:

I have known admission officers for Ivy league schools. The school admissions give “extra credit’ for
those students who have overcome hurdles to get into school. Most of the hurdles entail learning a new language (English), leaving their home country (China), and fleeing Communist regimes (China). For otherwise equal candidates the student who has overcome hurdles will be accepted in spite of not being a U.S. citizen.

Asian Reader writes:

I am not sure if Cleveland is a fairyland. For reality’s sake, I find it necessary to share this link with “WF writes from Cleveland”.

“Asians … will always feel part of their own civilizational story, as well as part of globalist, pop culture America. They will want to know that story and perpetuate it in some way. In that sense, they are not American, and never will be.”

I find this observation interesting. You might want to do a survey of third-generation Asian Americans and non-Asian Americans to see whether they actually differ in knowledge of Asian literature or Asian civilizational story.

On the other hand, I am wondering what group of immigrants will become American in the end based on your theory? Do they have to be non-Hispanic whites (including descendants of Russian communists, Italian mafia and Irish slaves)? Or should they be further restricted to Anglo-Saxon Americans?

Laura writes:

There are relatively few third-generation Asians in America. Remember, immigration from Asia was severely limited before 1965. In 1943, for instance, a total of only 100 immigrants were allowed in from all of Asia. In any event, longtime Chinese-Americans and Korean-Americans seem to maintain a strong cultural connection to China and Korea, which isn’t a bad thing in itself.

You might want to do a survey of third-generation Asian Americans and non-Asian Americans to see whether they actually differ in knowledge of Asian literature or Asian civilizational story.

I wasn’t referring to knowledge. I was referring to a sense of identification. Let me ask you — do you think third-generation Americans in Japan strongly identify with the Japanese royal family? Oh, wait a minute, there aren’t many third-generation Americans in Japan. Japan’s borders are tightly controlled.

Or should they be further restricted to Anglo-Saxon Americans?

I was referring to psychological realities. So talk of restrictions does not apply. I assume, however, that you also feel that China is too Chinese.

Please follow and like us: