Have you ever had a time, if you are a racial minority, feeling that anger is the weakest response toward an insult? For myself, the answer is yes. For many years living in the United States as an international student from China, in double jeopardy, I had no courage to be outrageous, facing all the microaggression and racial hostility I received. For example, when it comes to college applications, every Asian parent’s eyes are on Ivy League colleges, yet only a few can step foot into elite schools. Given that context, a recent hearing on a lawsuit by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against Harvard University draws public anger again. Connecting the latest hearing with the book Case For Rage by Myisha Cherry, this case explains the significance of rage and effort competently. With that in mind, my quick answer to the title is: No, your rage and effort against injustice are not in vain. But why? Throughout the reading, I found a profound idea that answers this question thoroughly.
In this blog post, I will first walk through the brief of the case between SFFA and Harvard University. Then I will explain the rage and effort against racial injustice, specifically in this case, and illustrate the connection between the book and it. Finally, I will discuss the ambiguity in the case, which serves as an alternative possibility.
SFFA accused Harvard University of discriminating against Asian American students by measuring certain character traits according to a subjective standard. Edward Blum, the founder of SFFA, wants to remove the consideration of race in college and university admissions. The case resulted in favor of Harvard University in 2020. According to Harvard University, “Two federal courts have ruled in Harvard’s favor. In her October 1, 2019 ruling, after a three-week trial with more than 20 witnesses, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs offered an unequivocal affirmation of the principles of diversity and inclusion central to Harvard’s mission, and to the missions of colleges and universities throughout the country. On November 12, 2020, the First Circuit upheld the District Court’s ruling in Harvard’s favor.” (Lawsuit, 2022) Given the recent update on the case, the question arises as to whether the effort against racial injustice is in vain or is unjust in college admission nonexistent. Although the idea of “being less Asian will help you succeed in college admission” has pervaded Asian American parents and students for many years, it alone is not sufficient to determine that Harvard’s and other related colleges’ admission processes are unfair to Asians. Therefore, the answer to the second question is still hanging in the air. However, the first question connects well with the philosophical idea of Lordean rage and can be well answered not by philosophy alone but also by statistics.
The lawsuit against Harvard reflects the worth of rage and effort against racial injustice in statistics. The recent hearing from the Supreme Court suggests that Harvard passed the strict constitutional standard regarding race during the admission process. Nonetheless, the upward trend in admission rate proved the value of anger against injustice statistically. The admission rate for Asian ethnicity at Harvard gradually is 28 percent this year, growing by 8 percent higher since 2013, when the lawsuit was brought up a year later. Along with that, drawing attention to the concern that haunts and angers Asian Americans is positive progress itself. And the latest result reflecting Harvard’s appropriate judgment during the admission process clears the cloud of many concerned and angered applicants. As a result, effort against injustice is a great leap forward, regardless.
However, the case against Harvard sheds light on protracted ignored Asian American anger and concern in college admission, and there are voices that shift focus by criticizing students’ desire to enter an Ivy League college. In the New York Times article reported in December 2022, a few comments convey that the desire to study in an Ivy League college is Asian parents’ pitfall instead of a valid concern for racial injustice. (“Applying to college, and trying to appear ‘Less Asian,'” 2022) Cherry also recognizes this voice and responds to it in Case For Rage: “Lordean rage not only registers racial injustice. It recognizes and advertises justice’s worth.” (Cherry, ch. 2) Cherry’s idea argues against some people’s twisting of the idea that fighting against racial injustice is to blame personal failure on the system, which mirrors a child getting angry when parents regret giving candy. However, racial inequality is not only a personal failure, and fighting against it is not worthless. Because the anger and struggle itself is a respect for justice and equality. This idea parallels Cherry’s assertion that “Lordean rage is a way of appreciating racial justice in the sense of recognizing its worth. Just as anger registers injustice, it also expresses that there is a better choice, a better alternative.” (Cherry, ch.2) So, regardless of any possible case closure, the effort to bring up the lawsuit and public anger itself is not in vain.
Cherry argues that Lordean rage is not exclusive to a person who meets the perfect moral standard, as Aristotle initially asserted. Instead, Lordean rage is suitable to every person toward racial injustice. Therefore, in case of facing potential admission unfairness, it is valid for anyone involved in the issue to challenge the admission process with Lordean rage. Cherry argues that “… despite the moral apathy, ignorance, and bigotry of others, a better world is worth desiring, imagining, creating, and fighting for.” (Cherry, ch.2) Following Cherry’s argument, it is evident that such critiques against applicants’ concern are a twisting of focus rather than a valid concern. After all, it is rage and effort that pushes society for a better alternative in terms of racial justice.
Shared by: SandraJ
Image Credit: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/11/27/us/00nat-asians-bias-1/merlin_216874776_681b6b84-4d28-4331-91b3-2b6a7d53f532-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp
