0:00

Hi,

0:01

everybody, and welcome to another debate from

0:03

Intelligence Squared. I'm John Don And

0:05

in this one, we're gonna be crossing paths

0:08

with some decision making that's going

0:10

on right now in the supreme court. The

0:12

issue is affirmative action

0:14

in college admissions. Now,

0:17

of course, Affirmative action clashes have

0:19

been going on for years. We have debated it

0:21

in the past on our stage, and the Supreme Court

0:23

has ruled on it a number of times. Finally

0:26

landing in two thousand and three

0:28

on what it intended to be a

0:30

workable formula, at least for a time.

0:33

that universities cannot legally

0:35

set aside quotas for racial minorities. They

0:38

cannot set numbers but they

0:40

can take race into account as one

0:42

of many factors to consider when assessing

0:44

an individual student for admission. But

0:46

now something else is going on. The court is

0:48

considering a fresh set of legal challenges.

0:51

These involve admissions at the University

0:54

of North Carolina and at Harvard

0:56

University. And the Harvard case,

0:58

in particular, represents a

1:01

new line of attack from those who are opposed to

1:03

schools using race as determining fact for

1:05

admission. And that line of attack says

1:07

that affirmative action is practiced at Harvard,

1:09

discriminates in particular against

1:12

Asian Americans. the justices

1:14

are now in the process of their deliberations on that

1:16

issue, but we wanna get to it now. So here

1:18

is the question before us. What we're gonna debate

1:20

is is affirmative action to

1:23

Asian Americans. We have

1:25

got two lawyers who are gonna be debating this with

1:27

us, and I'd like to welcome them to the program.

1:29

First, Lee Chang, has been involved

1:31

in this issue for more than thirty years.

1:33

He is the child of Chinese immigrants who learned

1:36

English at the age of five. And

1:38

in addition to working for a few different law firms,

1:40

he has held c suite positions at companies

1:42

like Newegg and Gibson guitars.

1:44

Lee, thanks so much for joining us at Intelligent

1:46

Square. I'm thrilled to be here,

1:48

John. Thank you for having me. And John

1:50

Yang is president and executive director

1:53

of Asian Americans advancing justice,

1:55

AAJC The title

1:57

describes his passion. He has been fighting

1:59

for the rights of Asian Americans for a long time,

2:01

has also worked in the world of big law,

2:03

and in government, Unfair president

2:05

Obama. He was senior advisor for

2:08

trade and strategic initiatives at the US Department

2:10

of Commerce. John, thanks so much also for joining

2:12

us on Square. to be here as

2:14

well. So before we get to our first round, I

2:16

just want to check-in to learn which side each

2:18

of you will be arguing. So Lee Chang,

2:20

please go first. On the question, is affirmative

2:22

action unfair to Asian Americans.

2:25

Do you say yes or no? I say absolutely

2:27

yes, but it's nuanced. Thank

2:29

you. Well, we like Nuance on intelligence Squared, so

2:32

I'm glad to hear you say So, John

2:34

Yang, this is a binary, so we know that you're gonna

2:36

be arguing no. But to get it on the record,

2:38

I wanna have you say it. The question

2:40

is affirmative action Unfair to Asian Americans.

2:42

Are you yes or a no? No. Affirmative action

2:45

is not unfair to Asian Americans. We should

2:47

be able to talk about our race. Alright. Thank

2:49

you, both of you for telling us where you stand

2:51

on this issue. So Let's move to our first round,

2:53

which will be opening arguments. You

2:55

each get up to four minutes to present

2:57

your opening case. Fair warning. I will break

2:59

in if you hit time. Leech Chang, you

3:01

are up first. Your four minutes start

3:04

now. Thank you again, So

3:06

like I said, affirmative action

3:08

in my views on it and most people's views

3:11

on it are far more nuanced I think

3:13

a lot of people would like to have us believe

3:16

I think for the purposes of this debate, I'm

3:18

supposed to say categorically that affirmative

3:20

action is unfair to Asian Americans. But

3:23

with apologies to your format and to

3:25

you, I'm gonna have to probably

3:27

agree, right, that the

3:29

definition of affirmative action that

3:32

is broad and that, you

3:34

know, my esteemed opponent, John Yang,

3:36

would probably say, is really one

3:39

of our action is to something I agree

3:41

with, helping the disadvantaged achieve

3:43

their potentials so that they can benefit

3:45

society. Unfortunately, What

3:47

I and the vast majority of people

3:49

of almost every single ethnic group

3:51

have consistently agreed with

3:54

is that affirmative action as implemented.

3:56

has become a deeply corrupted travesty

3:59

of what it was intended to be.

4:01

It was intended again to help the disadvantaged

4:04

of all communities reach their potential.

4:06

It is now commonly known to represent

4:09

programs that determinatively and

4:11

significantly use race, national

4:13

origin, and ethnicity to allocate societal

4:16

offered communities and benefits. The

4:18

ban against racial preference

4:20

based in determinative Affirmative action

4:23

is not as John has implied

4:25

something that would prevent people from talking about

4:28

race far from. Right? The ban

4:30

is to prevent the Affirmative use

4:32

of race in various governmental programs

4:35

and in various governmental actions. As

4:37

someone who has personally experienced

4:39

discrimination based on the or welly

4:41

in use of the word affirmative and

4:44

studied the programs for Debates, I

4:46

can absolutely and categorically say.

4:48

that race based and determinative affirmative

4:51

action is unfair to Asian Americans

4:53

and any American who is excluded

4:56

or discriminated against in its name.

4:58

The impact of racial preferences based

5:01

affirmative action programs on Asian Americans

5:03

were first seen in the educational arena,

5:06

and I had a front row seat. When

5:08

I was applying, as you mentioned, to

5:11

Lowell, to high school, in nineteen

5:13

eighty four, I was a relatively

5:15

recent immigrant, and I was told

5:17

by them progressive as now progressive

5:19

San Francisco Unified School District,

5:21

but because that because I was specifically

5:24

Chinese, I had to get a higher

5:26

grade and score than even white kids, Korean

5:28

kids, and Japanese kids, not to mention black

5:30

kids and Hispanic kids. And this

5:32

was very blatant, very, very

5:34

public. And this was

5:36

purportedly to help

5:39

enforce racial balancing in

5:41

public schools in San Francisco. I

5:43

got into low. I was very fortunate. I saw

5:45

this once again when I applied to college

5:48

and I got into Harvard. And I saw this

5:50

once again when I applied to graduate school and I'd

5:52

gotten into you see, vertically law

5:54

school. And the impact

5:56

of these programs that I witnessed

5:58

that really, really struck me was that it

6:00

tended to hurt the poor kids of the

6:02

non preferred groups. The poor Asian American

6:04

than poor white kids the most. And it

6:06

really didn't tend to help the

6:08

poor kids of the supposedly

6:10

preferred groups, African Americans and

6:12

Hispanics. So, you

6:15

know, what we have seen in the present

6:17

are expansions of these programs

6:20

into jobs, into

6:22

other government programs, like

6:24

private programs where the government has

6:26

course of significant course of power

6:28

like loans and licenses of contracts.

6:31

It is over and over

6:33

again a message

6:35

that clearly says that some

6:37

people are going to be excluded, including

6:41

Asian Americans, many Asian Americans

6:44

simply because other Asian

6:46

Americans have done well in society

6:48

and in life. And

6:50

over and over again, we are also hearing

6:52

people say, often people who are self

6:54

proclaimed progressive

6:58

people say that over Asian Americans

7:00

are not diverse or are overrepresented in

7:02

various arenas. So I

7:04

would actually say that absolutely

7:07

affirmative action programs as implemented

7:10

are harmful in discriminatory against Asian

7:12

Americans. Okay. Thank you very much. Now, we

7:14

want to turn it over to John Yang. You are

7:16

arguing no to the answer of whether

7:18

affirmative action is unfair to Asian Americans.

7:20

In other words, you are saying It is fair

7:22

to Asian Americans. Great. Thank you very

7:24

much, John. And thanks Lee. I look forward to this

7:26

debate. Louis should talk

7:28

about how Affirmative action is as implemented

7:30

because I think Lee is exactly right, is we don't

7:32

wanna just talk in theory, but talk in fact.

7:34

So if we wanna talk about the Harvard case

7:36

in particular, there was an over

7:38

hundred page decision by the Harvard District

7:40

Court that found that there was no evidence of

7:42

discrimination against Asian Americans. Likewise,

7:45

the first Circuit, the appellate court in Boston

7:47

in a hundred page opinion, likewise concluded,

7:50

that there were no findings that would suggest discrimination

7:52

against our community to Asian American

7:54

community. And let me be clear. If

7:56

we did find there was evidence of Asian

7:59

Americans, groups such as mine would

8:01

sue on behalf of our community. I

8:03

think it's important to note that in this

8:05

case, No Asian American student

8:07

or frankly no student for that matter

8:09

testified that they were denied a spot

8:11

on Harvard or that they were somehow

8:13

discriminated against because of their policies.

8:15

On the other hand, we had a number

8:17

of students testify, including Asian

8:19

American students, testified about

8:21

the benefits of affirmative action, the benefits

8:24

of diversity, on

8:26

campus at Harvard. I think it's

8:28

also important to recognize the statistics.

8:30

Twenty eight percent of the incoming class

8:32

of Harvard this year is Asian

8:34

American. whereas Asian Americans only

8:36

represent seven percent of the

8:38

American population overall. If

8:40

you look at the steady increase of

8:42

Asian Americans on Harvard's campuses,

8:44

you know, it was only three percent in nineteen eighty,

8:47

shortly after the Bakken decision, and now

8:49

it's twenty eight percent, which

8:51

is and exponential growth that

8:53

exceeds our growth in the American

8:55

population. And one final

8:57

statistic would be the fact that the class of

8:59

twenty twenty one, last year's incoming

9:01

class at Harvard was

9:03

had about twenty one point eight

9:05

percent applicants who are a Asian

9:08

whereas the ed met tees

9:10

from the Harvard class was twenty

9:12

two point two percent. So again,

9:14

that suggests statistically that we were

9:16

not discriminated against. Look,

9:18

we all know that Harvard and similarly

9:20

types of similar types of

9:22

colleges have very exceedingly

9:24

high standards. They get sixty

9:26

thousand applications a year, and they

9:28

only make two thousand offers

9:30

a year. if they wanna fill their

9:32

class with all valedictorian, they

9:34

could easily do that several times over.

9:36

You know, they they reject

9:39

approximately fifty percent of the

9:41

applicants get get perfect SAT

9:43

scores. So the question is,

9:45

so how do they create a

9:47

group? that promotes their

9:49

educational equity and to

9:51

promote a group that has all of these

9:53

complexities within sort of a

9:55

student body. So if

9:56

we're looking at just grades and GPA

9:59

alone, then

9:59

that would not be the full measure of

10:02

what Harvard is trying to accomplish. It's

10:04

also important to recognize that Asian Americans

10:07

buy a large support affirmative polls

10:09

that we have done consistently show approximately

10:12

seventy percent of Asian Americans support

10:14

affirmative action, recognize the value

10:16

that it gives to our community as a

10:18

whole. And we don't want to be in a

10:20

position that we play the so called model

10:22

minority. The last thing I would

10:24

want to say is that when we talk about

10:26

affirmative action, ultimately, it's about

10:28

being able to tell our stories in

10:30

our college occasions if we're focusing

10:32

on colleges and universities. Being to

10:34

recognize that race does still matter

10:36

in this community, that we are not in

10:38

a race blind society, and to be able

10:40

to tell our stories that includes race and

10:42

ethnicity. I agree that it's not

10:44

about quotas, it's not about caps, but

10:46

that's not what these systems are about.

10:48

These systems are about valuing

10:50

the whole person, the whole story, and

10:52

that whole story includes the

10:54

the use of race in a beneficial

10:57

way. Alright. Let's continue around one now with some

10:59

discussion of the points that have been made in your opening

11:01

statements. I wanna take a question to you,

11:03

John, from something that Lee told a

11:05

personal story. about

11:07

getting the message when he was a high school student, and

11:09

then getting the message again when he was applying to

11:11

college, that as an

11:13

Asian American, when it

11:15

comes to the

11:17

scores. And I understand you say scores aren't part

11:19

of the whole pic aren't the entire picture, but that

11:21

when it comes to scores, he

11:23

and other Asian Americans have

11:25

to have higher numbers

11:27

than blacks and Latinos and

11:30

whites as well, I believe, and that

11:32

that on its face is just not

11:34

fair. So if I were to answer that, I mean,

11:36

firstly, certainly, to the extent someone

11:38

hold that to your face, I do think that that's

11:40

inappropriate. And that

11:42

goes to something around counselors and how they're

11:45

approaching issues. But if we're to

11:47

take a step back in

11:49

terms of understanding sort

11:51

of the the whole admissions process. You know,

11:54

the admissions process includes more than just

11:56

GPAs, more than just test scores.

11:58

So in that context,

11:59

if if all we're

12:02

focusing on, those two things, even at

12:04

Harvard or Yale or any of these Ivy league

12:06

schools, you have to make a distinction. then

12:08

how do you make that distinction among those

12:10

people? And I it's too

12:12

simplistic to say, well, alright, you know,

12:14

someone that gets an eight hundred SAT is

12:16

better than one with a seven ninety SAT.

12:18

Because at a certain point, right, we all

12:20

recognize that they are qualified.

12:24

More from Intelligence

12:26

Square US when we return.

12:41

Welcome back. I'm John Don Van, and

12:43

this is intelligent Squared US.

12:45

Let's jump right back into our discussion.

12:49

And that's

12:52

the other important thing I think to recognize about

12:55

these policies that are in place. We're

12:57

not talking about anyone that is not qualified

12:59

to go to these schools. We're talking

13:01

about sort of within that huge

13:04

population of qualified students. How

13:06

do they make decisions? And

13:08

certainly for me, Andrew, if you look

13:10

at the evidence, there's no

13:12

suggestion that Asian Americans

13:14

are being categorically shut out of the

13:16

process because of their race. But but

13:18

but but the well, I let I let step in rather You

13:20

know, John, so first of all, just to clarify for

13:22

you. Right? The program that I'm describing

13:25

was one that was mandated by the

13:27

City of San Francisco. for

13:29

racial mixing purposes. It was

13:31

a criteria that existed for

13:33

twenty years where if you were specifically

13:35

Chinese, you had to get a higher score on

13:37

the admissions index. Right?

13:40

Holistic admissions program merely

13:42

mask that discrimination better.

13:44

and I think you're sticking your head in the sand when

13:46

you deny when you deny

13:48

the evidence before everyone's eyes

13:51

that Harvard created and

13:53

used the personality criteria

13:55

to discriminate against Asian Americans.

13:57

Asian Americans, I I'm

13:59

shocked that you wouldn't find appalling.

14:02

right, a program where Asian Americans

14:04

receive lower personality scores

14:06

by people who have never met them

14:08

in Harvard admissions office

14:10

and to shot that that you would

14:12

you would agree that Asian

14:14

Americans cannot are are categorically

14:17

viewed as undesirable having

14:19

no effervescent's personality confidence.

14:21

by heart I'm gonna jump John John, before

14:23

you respond No. We're gonna jump in. I'm gonna

14:25

jump in John and Lee because I think

14:27

a lot of our listeners may not

14:30

know about this personal score.

14:32

So at Harvard, and I

14:34

assume that because Harvard is so influential, the model

14:36

has been used in other places, applicants

14:39

are given scores on a range of

14:41

domains of talents

14:43

or skills. They include academic, they

14:45

include athletic, They include extracurriculars.

14:48

But another one of them is now called

14:50

the personal score. And

14:52

the the individual is

14:54

judged on I have a list from this

14:56

comes from the

14:59

discovery of in the Harvard case.

15:01

Here's a list of the sort of things that people are

15:03

scored on for the personal score. courage

15:05

in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles,

15:08

leadership, maturity, genuineness,

15:10

selflessness, humility, resiliency,

15:12

judgment, citizenship, spirit and

15:14

camaraderie with peers. And

15:16

what Lee is talking about is the

15:18

fact that Asian Americans

15:21

as a group, scores significantly

15:24

lower than other groups

15:26

in this personal score. And I

15:28

think Lee you're saying, that's

15:30

actually deliberate. That that or that's

15:32

that's actually a mechanism of

15:34

exclusion. So I'm just giving that background to

15:36

let John I see. It is

15:38

You know, no. So I I let me just provide some

15:40

more background because I've been interviewing for Harvard College

15:43

admissions now for twenty eight years. Right?

15:45

It's there are three main criteria. There's personality,

15:48

academics, and extracurriculars. And

15:51

and and Harvard doesn't actually

15:53

interview most of the most of the

15:55

applicants alumni interviewers do,

15:57

and alumni interviewers do not score

15:59

Asian Americans any lower on personality,

16:01

but Harvard categorically does.

16:04

by orders of magnitude. Okay.

16:06

So if I could respond, first, it is

16:08

a personal rating, not a personality

16:10

rating, and I think the word choice is

16:12

important here. because by saying that

16:14

it's a personality score is suggesting

16:16

that Harvard is somehow grading down

16:18

on the personalities of Asian

16:20

Americans. And, John, you do have it right that the factors

16:22

that go into the personal ratings are as

16:24

you listed. Number two

16:26

is if you look at the actual district

16:28

court opinion, it did not say that it would

16:30

there was a significant difference between

16:33

the scores of Asian Americans and other

16:35

camp. Right? Now it is correct to

16:37

say that the this recording noted

16:39

a statistical difference

16:41

between the the the two categories

16:43

between Asian Americans and others. But then it

16:45

also went on to find that that evidence

16:47

was not compelling because there were a number

16:49

of other factors that could explain

16:51

that that were not related to race

16:53

and not relate to ethnicity.

16:55

If we were to go down that route, there actually

16:57

was a statistical what I would call anomaly

16:59

also with the Asian Americans academic

17:01

rating. whereby Asian Americans

17:03

were scored higher for no apparent

17:05

statistical reason. So that or no

17:07

apparent causation Asian. So

17:09

then are we suggesting that Asian Americans were discriminated

17:12

in favor of with respect to academic

17:14

rating? So there's a lot to un

17:16

hacked there. At the end of the day, I think we

17:19

should defer to the District Court's

17:21

opinion, where it thoroughly

17:23

addressed all of these issues and as well as the

17:25

expert opinions, and came to this

17:27

conclusion. I I appreciate John that you are talking

17:29

about that we shouldn't just focus on

17:31

Harvard. I think this does go to something

17:33

that's important to me though. It's We need to

17:35

examine the evidence because there are

17:37

definitely anecdotes out there about what

17:39

people believe is happening. But when

17:41

we look at the evidence, we look at

17:43

the statistics, does not suggest

17:45

this type of quota, this type of cap

17:47

that is happening. The evidence absolutely

17:49

suggests that cap and quota

17:51

and I'll I'll accept the fact that the District Court and

17:53

the Court of Appeals ruled the way that they

17:55

do, and I would observe that your reliance

17:57

on their findings is about

17:59

to very likely be overturned by the US supreme

18:02

court. Even that court itself

18:04

has never been free from

18:06

error. Right? After all, we

18:08

have very, very infamous presidents

18:10

like dredge Scott and Plusavy Ferguson

18:12

and Cormack Su to look back upon. And

18:14

I think an overreliance on the findings

18:17

of courts on the opinions

18:19

of generals, I think, is has

18:22

proven throughout history, but to be

18:24

very harmful to individual rights

18:26

and civil rights especially of

18:28

non whites and and including Asian

18:30

Americans. But on the personality score

18:32

side. Again, I have been involved in Harvard College admissions

18:34

now for twenty eight years, and I've been looking

18:36

at those criteria, and I've been applying

18:39

those criteria. in submitting write up

18:41

reports to Harvard. And

18:43

I can tell you categorically, the

18:45

each of the three

18:47

main criteria, academic specs acrylic

18:49

alert and personal ratings are graded from one

18:52

to five and defined in a very, very

18:54

granular way. Okay?

18:56

They they they don't mess around. They're trying

18:58

to get to an objective sort

19:00

of determination of how to make

19:02

up a class when so many qualified people

19:04

are applying. And so

19:06

there's no question historically, statistically

19:09

that Asian Americans and it's shocking to me

19:11

again that you bring up the fact and we suggest that

19:13

Asian Americans are getting a benefit on

19:15

the academics. Asian Americans on

19:17

grades and test scores have led the

19:19

way for decades. In the

19:21

nineties when you and I applied to

19:23

college, John, Asian Americans were said to

19:25

be core boring gray grubbers. And I

19:27

think it's unfair for you to suggest that

19:29

Asian Americans are in any way boring

19:31

gray grubbers anymore. your kids, my kids,

19:33

everybody now knows extra quicklers. I I don't

19:35

think I mean, just in fairness and in terms of

19:37

the toners, this thing, I don't think I heard

19:39

John suggest anything like that, Lee.

19:41

Well, so in fairness, John didn't say that,

19:43

but what John said was that, you

19:45

know, Harvard shouldn't be just be

19:47

using grades anymore. Right? He

19:49

missed the whole extra curricular criteria. I listened to that

19:51

very carefully. He missed the whole extra

19:54

curricular criteria where Asian

19:56

Americans are now also excelling. at

19:59

the

19:59

highest possible

19:59

level. I listened to exactly what he said.

20:02

You're right. I agree with him.

20:04

Okay. Let's let John jump in. Right. I

20:06

mean, look. And and again, what I am

20:08

suggesting is that we have to look at all of this

20:10

as a holistic review. You're

20:12

absolutely right. We should be considering

20:14

extra credit colors. We should be

20:16

considering the academic rating we

20:18

should be concerning, the personal rating. And

20:20

I think Harvard also has a athletic rating as

20:22

well as a couple of other ratings that factor

20:24

into all of this. But again, statistically,

20:26

and I'm interested in what evidence that

20:28

you're looking at, statistically. And based

20:30

on the evidence, and I agree with

20:32

you, certainly, the district court, court appeal

20:34

could be overruled. But the evidence submitted to

20:37

date in the Harvard case, the evidence

20:39

that I know of with respect to

20:41

the the various affirmative action

20:43

programs do does not suggest

20:46

systemic

20:46

discrimination against Asian Americans.

20:48

Now

20:48

again, I think we do have a point of

20:51

agreement here. that are there

20:53

certain admissions counselors or

20:55

others that have engaged in

20:57

the stereotyping? That's probably

20:59

true. But the question here

21:01

is, is that systemic?

21:03

Is that a policy of

21:05

all of Affirmative action programs?

21:07

And there there's no evidence to suggest

21:09

that it is. And to say that we we

21:11

know that it's happening and it's

21:13

happening of snow smoke and mirrors and it's

21:15

just a substitute for quotas that that that

21:17

are prohibited. I just don't see the

21:19

evidence again. So when I look at the numbers,

21:22

there's a direct correlation, but there's a number of

21:24

people that apply. the number

21:26

of people that are admitted, unless

21:28

we're suggesting somehow that Asian

21:30

Americans are super, so much more qualified

21:32

that we should be getting even a higher

21:35

percentage I just don't quite buy the argument

21:37

without more statistics. The statistics are actually right

21:39

there. I mean, the plaintiff's counsel plaintiff's

21:42

experts introduce a mountain

21:44

of statistics. the control test

21:46

for admissions historically. And in schools

21:48

like the control school has always been

21:50

Cal Tech. Cal Tech also does not

21:52

just consider grades and test scores. Right? But Cal

21:54

Tech also doesn't really use race. And

21:57

in schools like Cal Tech,

21:59

at schools like UC Berkeley immediately

22:01

post 209 percentage

22:03

of Asian Americans went up to admit

22:05

it went up to about forty five percent forty

22:07

to forty five percent So to your

22:09

point earlier point junt that you raised,

22:11

you know, that you made earlier about Asian Americans

22:14

constituting twenty eight percent of the

22:16

Harvard student body. That

22:18

increase has literally been

22:20

the result this lawsuit. For about twenty years,

22:22

and believe me, I've been tracking this

22:24

carefully every year since I

22:26

graduated. For about twenty years, the

22:28

percentage of Asian Americans admitted to Harvard every year

22:30

Harvard between nineteen and twenty two,

22:33

and then the lawsuit occurred. And every single

22:36

year, Harvard increased the

22:38

percentage of Asian Americans admitted

22:40

until it's reached twenty eight. Right?

22:42

So I don't think that that was

22:45

by accident. I think squeaky wheels in this society get

22:47

greased. Okay? Alright. So Lee Lee, I

22:49

wanna come in with this question then.

22:51

You know, Harvard, since we keep talking about

22:53

Harvard, Harvard has a bad track

22:55

record going back a years when it comes to discrimination against

22:58

Jews. The the university very

23:01

almost very openly made

23:04

it clear that they wanted to reduce the number of Jews

23:06

who were at that time doing well on

23:08

the entrance exam, which was the main

23:10

criteria for getting into school,

23:12

and their numbers were going up. And as an institution,

23:15

Harvard didn't like that. And they

23:17

instituted a holistic approach, which

23:19

began to bring in other qualities and

23:22

that holistic approach began to

23:24

count against Jews. There there

23:27

were assessments of their

23:29

character for example that were

23:31

not as positive as the

23:33

non Jews who were applying to the

23:35

school at the time. What was

23:37

clear there was a racial

23:39

animus. they didn't like Jews.

23:41

I'm wondering, are you making the argument

23:44

that Harvard and other universities are putting

23:46

the thumb on the scale

23:48

against Jews deliberately out of racial

23:50

animus towards Americans.

23:53

Well, against Asian America. The

23:56

racial animus is

23:59

not as a parent, but there is absolutely

24:01

racial animus. I see racial animus

24:03

whenever someone suggests that a school

24:05

that is plurality, Asian Americans

24:08

significant numbers of Asian Americans is not

24:10

sufficiently diverse, especially

24:12

when diversity has been suggested

24:14

as a such

24:16

an extraordinary and valuable

24:18

ideal for a society to achieve. I

24:20

see it when people say that Asian Americans

24:22

are over rubber said it. I see it when

24:24

I hear in response to these

24:27

fights against racial preferences that Asians

24:29

have at all and we just want to we want

24:31

we want it all and we want too

24:33

much. And I view that what

24:35

Harvard is doing as very much

24:37

something that insights hatred

24:39

and dislike and spec

24:42

against and even violence against Asian markets

24:44

every bit as much as calling COVID

24:47

a

24:48

China flu. And I do

24:50

see another undercurrent of anti

24:52

Asian. Okay. So so that

24:54

that's a yes. You feel that

24:56

that these institutions

24:59

that are practicing this

25:02

approach have something against Asian. or

25:04

at least something against too many Asians in the same

25:06

way that Harvard had that feeling about Jews. I

25:08

just wanted to see if you felt that there

25:11

was it wasn't an accidental byproduct.

25:13

It was part of the program was to keep

25:15

down the number of agents for some reason. So

25:17

John, I want to – you heard what Lee had to say. I'd

25:19

just like to get your response to that.

25:21

Yeah. And I'll admit I must

25:24

disagree with that that assessment that there

25:26

is some type of racial animus. I the

25:28

the evidence again, the evidence that I see does

25:30

not exist. Again, you can always cherry pick a

25:32

couple of comments here and there to

25:34

suggest that someone is stereotyping Asian

25:37

Americans just as you could cherry pick here and

25:39

their comments about any racial or

25:41

ethnic group. Frankly, I think the

25:43

other conversation we should have about

25:45

affirmative action is, who is this designed

25:47

to help? What are we trying to

25:49

achieve? we are trying to achieve is

25:51

to make sure that we have educational equity,

25:53

that we are ensuring that underrepresented

25:57

groups do have the opportunity. And here, when I

25:59

say underrepresented groups,

26:01

obviously, we are talking about African Americans

26:03

and Latino Americans Americans.

26:06

But also, we are talking about Asian Americans

26:08

that tradition not to have not had

26:10

a shot. And that's also what affirmative

26:13

action is designed to do. Again, is

26:15

this notion of recognizing

26:17

that race matters that you can use?

26:19

What's called a tip? We will we will

26:21

You can explain you tip again to people who don't

26:23

know this language. A a tip is

26:25

this notion that you can use race

26:28

as a favorable factor when

26:30

you are assessing a person's Tips

26:32

the bound tips the bound like a favorite of

26:34

the person. tips a balance of favor

26:36

of a person. That's exactly. Mhmm. That's exactly. Thank

26:38

you for that. Yes. The

26:40

and and the the recognition that's

26:42

certain groups have had challenges. Now again, some a

26:44

lot of this comes out in personal

26:47

essays. A lot of this comes out in

26:49

in all sorts of different facets.

26:51

So it's not as if there

26:53

is some magic number that is being put

26:55

on, like a plus ten factor for any

26:58

particular grade eraser

27:00

ethnicity. that has been prohibited by the Supreme Court. So

27:02

we wanna be very, very careful about

27:04

the nuance to which these universities that

27:06

are trying to operate. I appreciate what

27:08

Lee is trying is saying, but III

27:11

think that there is a much greater nuance and

27:13

there's not this type of racial animus. And

27:15

when I say, I think that I don't see

27:17

the evidence for that. I really don't see the

27:19

evidence for that. Lead you care to respond because

27:21

I can move on. I have

27:24

I have. I have seen the evidence for

27:26

that. I've seen it in programs that say

27:28

that if you're specifically Chinese, you have

27:30

to score higher. I've seen it

27:32

in not random comments, but

27:34

comments institutional leaders that agents are over represented.

27:36

I've seen it in comments by Bill

27:38

Clinton in nineteen ninety two that

27:40

without racial preferences, the UC system

27:42

would be all Asian. Right? You

27:44

know, and and that and that was by the president

27:46

of the United States at the

27:49

time. So, you know, when you look at

27:51

the evidence presented in

27:53

this court, that the Supreme Court will

27:55

will shortly overrule, I

27:57

believe, the district court and the court of appeals

27:59

on. I'll bet you I'll bet you at dinner, John,

28:01

that they will. Okay? Because it's

28:03

overwhelming that race is absolutely

28:05

used in a determinative way. I even support

28:07

and I would agree with you that race matters. I

28:09

totally agree with you I I have been under

28:11

receiving at Asian discrimination, including

28:14

violence, in my life,

28:16

and I see it. It

28:18

happens. I also agree that race could be used as a tip. I'm

28:20

I'm actually supportive of the Bakken standard.

28:23

However, race has been used it tremendously at

28:25

Harvard. Can you can you tell people what the

28:27

Bakken standard is please. The Bakken standard is

28:29

that race should matter and it can be used

28:31

as one of many equal factors. It can

28:33

be used as the tip that John is

28:35

talking about. And a tip is all it should

28:37

be used for. However, when you look at how

28:39

it's been applied at Harvard,

28:41

what the evidence shows is

28:44

that Asian Americans Americans quintile

28:46

of academics and extracurriculars, which is

28:48

really the only quintile where Harvard admits

28:51

students Anybody not in the top quintile of academics and

28:53

extracurriculars will not be able to

28:55

keep up with the Harvard course load.

28:57

Okay? So they have a

29:00

there there chances of getting the top personal

29:03

score is something like half of

29:05

the chance of a

29:07

white student. seven times less than

29:09

that of a Hispanic student, eight

29:11

times less than a black

29:13

student. So again, unless someone is is

29:15

asking is it basically saying that Asian Americans

29:17

are just categorically, right,

29:20

less personable than

29:21

as kids of any other ethnic group.

29:23

that's the smoking gun right there along

29:25

with many others. Alright. I wanna

29:27

step back for a moment. Let's wrap up

29:29

this first round here.

29:31

and just take a very brief moment outside

29:33

of the arguments to just get a

29:35

steeper sense of what inspires each of you to take the side

29:37

in the argument that you do, just like maybe

29:40

moment of autobiography. And

29:42

I'm gonna come to you first John Yang

29:45

because, you know, among your many

29:47

other undertakings, you're a defender of

29:49

an you're an advocate for the rights of Asian Americans in many

29:51

venues like employment and voting. You're

29:53

also a champion of immigration rights. And

29:55

you have said that when you heard Donald

29:58

Trump very the idea refer to immigrants as being a group

30:00

that included rapists, etcetera. You took

30:02

it very personally. So why was

30:04

that so personal to you?

30:07

And how does that reaction fit into the

30:09

side of the argument that you're taking in this

30:11

debate? Thank you for that, John.

30:13

So I am what some would call an

30:15

illegal alien. I was at one

30:17

point in in my life, an

30:19

undocumented immigrant. I was from a client. I

30:21

was nine to the time I was

30:23

a graduate from high school. And so when I heard

30:25

someone and it could be anyone, it doesn't have to

30:27

be political, say that illegal

30:29

aliens are trained on society, They

30:32

in many ways, it is personal to me

30:34

because they in some ways are referring to me. So

30:36

it is important to stand up for

30:38

me for the rights of people that don't

30:40

have privileges that I have I have

30:43

had the fortune of sharing and the fight

30:45

for

30:46

their rights. I'm

30:50

John Donben.

30:54

This is Intelligence Squared We'll

30:57

hear more from our debaters right after

30:59

this.

31:30

Welcome back

31:34

to intelligent squared US. I'm John Don

31:36

Van. Let's get back to

31:38

our debate. Lee, I wanna

31:40

take the same question to you about something from your from

31:42

your life. You recently published

31:44

a letter on Twitter that you wrote to

31:46

the president of Harvard. and

31:49

you were talking about your son

31:51

who's now at the point of applying to

31:53

college. And you said he's applying to

31:55

thirty schools because as an

31:57

Asian American male, he I'm

31:59

quoting you now, he doesn't have any reason to believe that

32:01

his hard work and talent gives him more

32:03

than a de minimis chance to gain admission

32:05

to to almost any selective admission college.

32:08

You said he's under tremendous stress.

32:10

You said that this pains you,

32:12

it outrages you, and you said I will

32:14

never be able to forgive this act of evil committed

32:17

against my child no matter what's your

32:19

intention and the harfords. I just wanted to

32:21

take a moment to talk about,

32:23

you know, this passion that

32:25

you feel you were wronged and now

32:27

you feel it's happening to another

32:30

generation. let me correct something. I don't feel

32:32

that I was wronged in the sense that I

32:34

didn't get into a school. I actually got into

32:36

Lowell, I got into Harvard, I got

32:39

into Berkeley. I don't care about

32:41

getting any kids into any

32:43

school. I care about

32:45

how my children are viewed. Squared about

32:47

how Asian Americans are viewed and treated under the

32:49

law. Right? And what I object to is

32:51

the fact that Asians are viewed as

32:54

undesirable, as less

32:56

valuable, because we're considered less

32:58

diverse, because we're considered less

33:00

additive to this this false god

33:02

of racial diversity and ethnic

33:05

diversity. So it's

33:07

become very personal now where it used to

33:09

be just something that was a matter of

33:11

principle. So I used to get beat up

33:13

because I was Asian Americans didn't speak

33:15

English. I funny food and I wore

33:17

funny looking clothing. And I had a haircut that

33:19

was literally shaped like a bowl.

33:21

Okay? Like many Asian markets. And

33:23

so I always had in my

33:25

heart a you know, I I think a

33:27

desire to stand up and fight for the

33:29

underdog. And so when nobody stood up for the

33:31

rights of Chinese American kids in

33:33

San Francisco, a group of friends and I

33:35

did. We did that. That's what motivated us.

33:37

But now, it's very personal. I

33:39

have three kids. I have one applied to college

33:41

right now and he is going through that experience

33:44

right now. You know, he's being told

33:46

that basically he's not additive. That's

33:48

the message of being said. He's not additive

33:50

took to or as

33:52

additive to diversity. So that's

33:54

what motivates me even more now to

33:56

keep pushing and keep fighting. And I've been

33:58

fighting for thirty years. we my group

34:00

a group I found it launched the very first lawsuit

34:03

that featured Asian American plaintiffs

34:05

challenging a program that was

34:07

based upon racial mixing. Alright.

34:09

So thank you thank you to both of you because we know

34:11

that you care deeply about this, but having

34:13

insight as to why you care so

34:16

deeply about it is really

34:18

really useful to to us understanding where you're coming

34:20

from. Alright. Let's move on to our second round, and

34:22

we'd like to start out the second round this way. I wanna

34:24

give each of you a chance

34:26

to put a real

34:28

question to the other. And I wanna be clear, I don't

34:30

wanna hear you return to your talking

34:32

point. I would really like you to ask

34:34

a question that challenges your

34:36

opponent's argument, likely a weakness in

34:38

their argument, you know, the the

34:40

question that you feel the other

34:42

person really needs to answer. So, John

34:44

Yang, I'll have you go first. Why what

34:46

question do you wanna put to Lee

34:48

Chang? Yeah. Actually, and I

34:50

wanna put one to see if we could find a point

34:52

of agreement. because I heard him

34:54

say that he does agree that a tipping point

34:56

might be appropriate at some

34:58

level, but he disagrees with

35:00

affirmative action at least certainly the

35:02

Harvard standard. So my question would be

35:04

help me design a system that recognizes race,

35:06

recognizes that grades and test scores

35:08

are not the beyond and all.

35:11

but yet doesn't fall a

35:14

foul of what you are talking about in terms

35:16

of somehow capping Asian

35:18

Americans or capping any particular group.

35:20

What does that look like to you? I think the system can easily designed. You just

35:22

have to have a lot of transparency,

35:25

so you basically just

35:28

list out all of these criteria

35:30

like Harvard has with extracurriculars, academics, and

35:33

personality. Right? So criteria,

35:35

like, athletics actually falls under extra

35:38

curriculars just to let you know. I mean, I've seen

35:40

that. And sometimes, athletics can become a

35:42

tipping it can become a super

35:44

super point. But race can

35:46

certainly be factored in

35:48

somewhere and people just I I

35:50

think have to understand if it's just

35:52

one of many criteria, that's all

35:54

it counts for. just you

35:56

numeritize everything, which is exactly what

35:58

Harvard does. Harvard even

36:00

numeritize his personal scores.

36:02

It's one

36:04

through five. and they very, very clearly define it.

36:06

They could actually recognize

36:08

all of the the different factors of intersectionality.

36:11

Right? So it's not just race. You were go you you had

36:14

made a point earlier, John, about,

36:16

you know, the deed to have

36:18

representation. Right? It is

36:20

well known that the benefits

36:22

of racial preference do not go to poor

36:24

black Americans. A plurality

36:26

if not majority of racial of

36:28

race based slots actually go to African immigrants

36:30

and West Indies Indian immigrants from the

36:32

West Indies. Something like forty percent

36:35

at least. Okay? And

36:37

seventy seventy plus percent of all

36:39

of the race reserve seats at Harvard every single ethnic group ends

36:41

up with rich people, with rich kids.

36:43

So what Harvard's doing is really

36:45

aggregating rich people. So

36:47

I I you could design the program. You if you and I

36:49

sat down, I can design that program for you. I can

36:52

guarantee you. Harvard would not accept

36:54

it because it's not going to result in the

36:56

racial balancing. that's

36:58

illegal that Harvard wants. I guess what I

37:00

haven't heard if you don't mind

37:02

is what you've described seems to

37:04

be what Harvard is trying

37:06

to design but it sounds

37:08

like just you feel like they aren't

37:10

given sufficient guidance or that there is some

37:12

sort of racial animus that

37:14

needs to be taken out

37:16

of them in assigning these ratings and assigning some of

37:18

these scores that we're talking about.

37:20

And because what and that yeah. So let

37:22

me leave it there to

37:24

see if a misunderstanding that because I didn't hear something different

37:26

than what Harvard is already doing because they they

37:28

are pretty transparent about all

37:30

of these

37:32

different factors. I mean, maybe

37:34

you're objecting to how

37:36

they come up with a number. It's the weight

37:38

that they give to race as demonstrated

37:40

by statistics that you refuse to acknowledge.

37:43

and disagree about it. Well, yeah.

37:45

Well, now now that's unfair to say that I

37:47

refuse to acknowledge statistics. There is a battle at the x at

37:50

a minimum. there's a battle that the experts if we're talking And

37:52

in that battle, at least at the district court

37:54

level, the district court resolved that in

37:58

favor of heart. That that's fair. So that's that's a fair I don't don't

38:00

that's right. I I think it's not fair to say that I

38:02

Unfair acknowledge. You refuse to acknowledge

38:05

at the that show that Asian Americans are

38:07

getting categorically and massively lower

38:10

personal scores by a fact

38:12

by several orders

38:14

of magnitude. Alright. I'm gonna declare an impasse on that one, but Lee, I'd like to

38:16

know what your question is to John. What do you

38:18

think he needs to have

38:20

answered here? So in

38:22

nineteen ninety three, nineteen ninety four, when friends

38:24

a couple of friends and I helped organize the

38:26

whole versus San Francisco Unified School

38:30

District. Right? We found out that for twenty odd

38:32

years, Chinese American parents and

38:34

kids poor ones were approaching Asian

38:36

American civil rights groups and

38:38

telling them hey, you

38:40

know, we're being forced to score higher than

38:42

kids of any other ethnic

38:44

group, and they approached Henry Durr of

38:46

Chinese fur firm of action, other civil

38:48

rights groups, and they were like, hey, nothing to see

38:50

here. This is for a good cause.

38:52

Okay? It's the it's the support of the

38:54

help or block gets. nothing to

38:56

see. We think you should go away

38:58

and you should go apply to other high

39:00

schools. What would

39:02

you say? to an Asian American parent or child

39:04

if there was a program that

39:06

required them to score it and you can

39:08

prove it

39:10

statistically. and score higher or achieve more to get to the same result?

39:12

Well, the question for me is,

39:14

what does it mean to score

39:16

higher? Right? If the only

39:20

determinant for admission

39:22

was these objective, so called

39:24

objective marks about grade point average

39:27

and test scores. then I would

39:29

challenge what the system is. Right? Because if if you're you're

39:31

saying that art, they have to score higher,

39:34

but the part

39:36

of the is trying to to know,

39:38

a community that is

39:40

diverse, then I think we we

39:42

need to push

39:42

back against this notion that those

39:45

test scores, the scoring higher, is

39:48

all that matters. Because if we look at

39:50

even any university, I mean, again, the

39:52

Harvard statistics are the one that I know

39:54

the most, you know, thirty

39:56

percent of that community, the

39:58

Harvard Admitees are alumni,

40:00

legacies, Dean's List,

40:02

which means that Dean a designate special interest

40:04

people you know, not to

40:06

name name, but, like, the Jody Foster, Jared Kushner, you know, Chelsea Clinton's of the world.

40:08

Right? And faculty, you

40:11

know, relatives of faculty

40:14

members. thirty percent of the emissions are

40:16

about those categories, whereas they only represent five percent of the

40:18

people that are applying. So if we're

40:21

trying to design system along the

40:24

lines that you're talking about. Let's

40:26

be again more open to

40:28

recognize that it's not

40:30

just on sort of test scores that we should

40:32

be looking we need to be looking at how we create an ecosystem

40:34

overall. Now to to your specific

40:36

point, if someone is saying no, you have

40:38

to score

40:40

higher, than all of these. These are the objective members. We don't value

40:42

Asian Americans as much. You know,

40:44

I can't speak for what happened in the

40:47

past. but I will say that that our our

40:50

organization has spoken up when

40:52

we have seen that happen. So I

40:54

can't speak to the past, but at least for

40:56

the present, when we see

40:58

discrimination, we will try to address it,

41:00

but we don't see that overall with the

41:02

affirmative action policies that we see

41:04

in place. Alright. I wanna ask a question. As as we have talked

41:06

about some of the cases that have

41:08

come up in the past, the Bakken case from

41:11

the late seventies and then the grutter case in

41:14

two thousand and three. These were cases that

41:16

set up the presidents that are now being challenged

41:18

in the Supreme Court. And one of the important

41:20

points there was the

41:22

the court's opinion back

41:25

then

41:25

that that using race

41:26

as one of several factors was

41:29

a kind of discrimination that

41:31

was permitted under strict scrutiny because there

41:33

was a compelling government interest

41:36

in us achieving diversity

41:38

as an

41:40

educational ideal and benefit in the university system to all students.

41:42

Not not the argument was no

41:44

longer being made just as students who

41:46

had been marginalized or were underprivileged, but to

41:48

all students. And

41:50

in the arguments that were that took

41:52

place in the cases that were brought up

41:54

now in the particularly in

41:56

the in the case, the UNC case, the University

41:59

of North Carolina. Just as Thomas

42:01

asked a question, he said, I've

42:03

heard the word diversity. quite

42:05

a few times. And I don't have a clue what it means.

42:08

It seems to mean everything for

42:10

everyone. So what do you make of that

42:12

line of questioning? And how do you

42:14

think diversity is best

42:16

achieved in school admissions, is it a

42:18

value to aim for? Lee, I

42:20

believe I heard you say in your opening that you believe it

42:22

is, but I'd like you to

42:24

take on just as Thomas's position on this. Right. So

42:26

diversity has come to mean. I

42:28

think, you know, that it has become a

42:30

proxy for race and for

42:32

gender. And So even even

42:34

the definitions that we're using right now, the

42:36

way that we're describing people.

42:38

Right? John indicated that twenty eight

42:40

percent of of Harvard

42:42

student body as Asian What does that

42:44

even mean? Right? How can

42:46

we, you know, how can we possibly

42:48

believe that people who come from a

42:50

continent of dozens of countries and without

42:52

speaking thousands of languages,

42:54

right, are are somehow the

42:56

same. We're very, very substantially similar

42:58

similarly with black. What does that

43:00

mean? There's a vast gap between African

43:03

immigrants and African Americans Asian the

43:05

gaps between, you know, people who happen to

43:08

be black, whatever that means

43:10

again, you know, are huge as between

43:12

rich black people and poor

43:14

black people. So I support diversity based upon,

43:16

you know, some sort

43:18

of holistic assessment, but where

43:20

race is used as a proxy and

43:24

overweighted that's what I and most Americans are vehemently against

43:26

because that is racist. Alright.

43:28

So John, what I think I hear Lee's saying is that

43:30

the concept of diversity is sort of in the

43:32

abstract makes

43:34

sense but then in reality, it's been corrupted. And I would

43:36

like you to take that on. Well, I guess,

43:38

I would look at it and say, in reality,

43:40

it has not been corrupted. And in fact,

43:43

we need to do more because if you

43:45

look at the statistics related

43:48

to people of color

43:50

in c suites of females in C suites,

43:52

you look at the statistics and lead obviously

43:54

knows this well with respect to general councils

43:56

or equity partners and

44:00

law firms. communities of color are still lagging. And so we need

44:02

to do more to make sure

44:04

that those communities are being

44:06

lifted up. So in that

44:08

sense, I I think that diversity is more

44:10

than an abstract concept. It is one

44:12

that we need to strive for, and we need to create

44:14

policies to help

44:16

get to a more equitable result. I I do

44:18

appreciate what Lee is saying about that

44:20

twenty eight percent number that I

44:22

use, but I

44:24

what I use that more

44:26

to set out what the preemophasion case is

44:28

so to speak. If people

44:30

are saying that Harvard is discriminating, they

44:32

have to show that there is a disproportional impact, a negative impact

44:34

being faced by Asian Americans. And you

44:36

look at that twenty eight percent number, we're

44:38

only we're only seven percent of

44:42

population, at least it might cause someone to

44:44

questions like, that doesn't sound like

44:46

discrimination to me. But I agree with Lee,

44:48

but this is where we need to dig a little

44:50

bit deeper. is understand those statistics. Because the reality

44:52

is that there are communities that are

44:54

underrepresented. Oftentimes they are poor, I

44:56

would agree with you as

44:58

well there. But this is

45:00

why we need to consider race

45:02

where and create

45:04

create these policies where that it can have

45:06

a beneficial effect. Again, I think

45:08

where we're stuck is sort

45:10

of how we consider it in a way that

45:12

doesn't lead to some of the results

45:14

that Lee is projecting.

45:16

But I haven't heard yet something that

45:18

is better that actually makes

45:20

sense. Alright. Well, let's move into

45:22

our closing round now. And in this round,

45:24

you just get to take one more crack

45:27

at the at the issue after you've

45:29

heard everything each of you has had

45:31

to say. So Lee, I'm gonna give

45:33

you ninety seconds to make your closing

45:35

statement. Again, the question is, it's affirmative

45:38

action. Unfair to Asian Americans, you are saying

45:40

yes, it is. Ninety

45:42

seconds now. So as you mentioned earlier, John, race based

45:44

affirmative action as it

45:46

was permitted by the

45:48

Supreme Court. in nineteen seventy

45:50

four and that in two thousand and three was

45:52

never really supposed to be permanent.

45:54

It was always intended to be

45:56

temporary in the Supreme Court justices

45:58

who wrote controlling decisions indicated that it

45:59

wasn't that used the determinative

46:02

use of race was a necessary

46:04

evil. In nineteen seventy four, it was

46:06

justice Powell

46:08

who said forty years. Let's give it a shot forty years. You

46:10

know, justice O'Connor in two thousand

46:12

and three said twenty five years. So

46:14

we've been experimenting

46:16

now with supposedly benign

46:18

racism for almost fifty

46:20

years, and real people have

46:22

been hurt. I I brought to

46:24

you the concrete example of Chinese

46:26

American kids who were kept

46:28

out of a public high

46:30

school because of their ethnic origin,

46:32

because people wanted

46:34

to achieve racial mixing

46:36

there. I brought to you, you know, concrete

46:38

examples of, you know,

46:40

in evidence backed examples of

46:42

Harvard College based toggling down the

46:45

personality scores of Asian Americans to

46:47

levels that are unimaginable low.

46:50

You know? And so very, very few people

46:52

have benefited Right? If people

46:54

want to put in a program where there's such a

46:56

high cost, at least somebody

46:58

should benefit. So fifty years

47:00

after these race based programs have been put

47:02

into place, poor black people

47:04

are still poor. Poor black people

47:06

are still not achieving

47:08

academically the way that everyone would

47:10

like to see every community achieve.

47:13

Right? So it's time, I think, for

47:16

everybody, take a step back and try to

47:18

think about better ways, right,

47:20

to achieve equality in

47:22

equity and,

47:24

you know, the benefits of our society

47:26

for everybody in a way

47:28

that moves us forward on issues of race while allowing

47:30

us to talk about race while

47:32

allowing us to acknowledge race. to

47:36

not make race so central to our lives.

47:38

Okay. Thank you very much. And John Yang,

47:40

your turn to make your closing statement. You're

47:42

saying it is not true that affirmative action is

47:45

unfair to Asian Americans. Your closing

47:47

statement, please. Sure. First, just to

47:49

correct the record as a word, I I

47:51

did not say that afford of action should be time

47:53

limited. I do think that race does continue

47:55

to matter. You know, it would be a nice

47:57

ideal to have, but we are not

47:59

there yet. I think

48:02

there are a

48:02

couple of things. Number one is,

48:04

I think we all

48:05

agree that race does matter. It should

48:07

play a role. The question

48:09

is how much? and Lee suggested that affirmative action has

48:11

not done any good. Unfair, I

48:14

I would venture to say based on

48:16

the the studies that we've talked about,

48:19

that without affirmative action, Asian Americans

48:22

would not benefit any from

48:24

it. But the one thing we did not talk

48:26

about is Without affirmative action, this is the case that California

48:28

that the enrollment of

48:30

Hispanic Americans African

48:33

Americans plummeted significantly. and

48:37

so to suggest that affirmative action hasn't done anybody any good

48:39

is statistically inaccurate. The last thing I

48:41

would say is

48:44

I agree that we need to look at the

48:46

statistics and the evidence. And I very much worry when

48:48

we say that that personal scores

48:51

were toggled significantly. That's

48:54

not what the district court said. And we could debate about what the

48:57

district court and experts have said about

48:59

the impact. But certainly,

49:02

At the end of the day, the

49:04

statistics that we have show that affirmative action has not

49:07

affected Asian Americans Americans

49:09

we wanna about equity for Asian Americans, we should be

49:12

talking about a whole wide range of

49:14

different issues, but not focus on this

49:16

one narrow issue. Thank you, John Yang.

49:18

And I wanna say to both of you, John Yang

49:20

and Lee Chen. Thank you so much for

49:22

joining us for this conversation and debate on

49:24

the Squared squared.

49:26

I so appreciated how you you you conducted

49:28

this sharp disagreement with

49:30

civility and mutual respect. And

49:32

also, as you promised in

49:35

the beginning, Lee, some nuance that you both brought to the

49:37

conversation. It's really what we aim for, and I wanna

49:40

thank you both for joining me on

49:42

Intelligent Square. Thank you, John John.

49:44

Thank you,

49:46

Leah, John. And the conversation you just

49:48

heard perfectly captures why we do

49:50

this. You know that the way discourse happens these

49:52

days is

49:54

pretty broken And it's why it is so refreshing, but also

49:56

unusual to hear two people who disagree actually

49:58

be able to converse rationally and

50:00

civility and

50:02

shed light not just to blow smoke. And we know from so many of

50:04

you that's exactly why you listen to what we're doing

50:06

and why I'd like to remind you that as you

50:08

turn to us for that, we turn to you

50:10

for support. We're

50:12

a nonprofit and it's contributions from listeners like you that

50:14

keep us going. So please consider sending us a

50:16

buck or two or ten or fifty whatever

50:19

works for you. will give you a stake in what

50:21

we're doing here each week, and will mean that we are here this week,

50:24

next week, and beyond. For now, I'm

50:26

John Dunben. and see you

50:28

next time.

50:29

Thank you for tuning into this episode

50:31

of Intelligence made possible by a

50:33

generous grant from the Laura and

50:35

Gary Lauder venture lanthropy fund

50:38

as a nonprofit. Our work to

50:40

combat extreme polarization through

50:42

civil and respectful debate is

50:44

generously funded by listeners like

50:46

you, the Rosencranes foundation and

50:48

friends of Squared Robert

50:50

Rosencrantz is our chairman, Claire

50:52

Connor is CEO David Ariosto is

50:54

head of editorial. Julia MELFI, Shayo

50:56

Mara, and Marlett Sandoval are

50:58

our producers. Damon Whittimore is our

51:01

radio producer, and I'm your

51:03

host, John Dunbar. We'll see

51:07

you next

51:09

time. Panoply.