The Three Percent Conundrum

I am writing this op-ed after having been inspired by Willard Long Thorp Professor of Economics Jessica Wolpaw Reyes’s Letter to the Editor titled “Admissions — Clarity, Resolve, and Compassion.” As an incoming Association of Amherst Students (AAS) senator elected by the class of 2028 to represent the Amherst community as an undivided whole and as a member of the low-income, international, and queer communities, it is my obligation as a responsible representative to address the recent changes pertaining to the racial demographics of the entering class.

When first scrutinizing the class of 2028 demographics, my eyes instinctively went to the international column. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that the percentage of international students on campus rose by 3% compared to last year and is now at a whopping 16%. And I do believe that Amherst deserves praise for the way it handles international applicants, being the second most inclusive higher education institution in this regard, behind MIT. Amherst is one of the few need-blind colleges for international students in the country, abolished legacy admissions, and has only one early decision deadline — MIT is more inclusive only by not having any binding application options, which tend to favor the wealthy. This metric might not say anything about the pay status of international students and whether these students attended underfunded public schools or not, two factors important in quantifying the progress Amherst is making toward genuine inclusivity. Yet, based on anecdotal evidence, I can confidently say that the international community at Amherst covers a broad cross-section of backgrounds, cultures, and experiences and does not conform to the “rich international student” stereotype.

However, my ebullience was short-lived as I delved deeper into the demographics of the entering class and came across the percentage of Black first-year students. Three percent. It was appalling to realize that such a prominent and otherwise very inclusive, especially in international admissions, institution as Amherst could present such a dismal representation of Black students. It was even more appalling to realize that although the “structure” for admissions is comparatively inclusive (Amherst does not automatically fill a tenth of its class with legacy students like some Ivy League universities do), this is not at all a deterministic process; there are people behind the acceptance letters, and these people willingly decided not to take the initiative to adapt the admissions process to a world without affirmative action.

In this regard, the abolishment of affirmative action has been both a boon and a curse. It is a boon because now colleges cannot merely admit full-pay Black students on race considerations and call it progress — accepting Black people with hedge fund manager parents is not diversity. Colleges must now consider a broader definition of diversity that transcends race and ethnicity and extends into socioeconomic status, high school status (charter, public, boarding, etc.), and life experience; this is progress. Yet, the abolition of affirmative action is a categorical curse because Amherst deplorably failed the test and actively chose to do so. There is an entire admissions committee liable for choosing the next generation of mammoths, and the onus was on them to uphold the interests of the Amherst community both equitably and legally. They failed.

I contend that it must have been fear and complacency that led us here. To preclude this issue from spiraling into a crisis that will diminish our community’s distinctive vitality and plurality, I argue we must strive for genuine diversity by putting socioeconomic considerations at the forefront of the admissions process. We live in a society where racism is deeply ingrained and institutionalized, hence why people of color are more likely to go to underfunded schools and come from financially disadvantaged backgrounds. By acknowledging that race and class are inextricably intertwined and by shifting our well-founded concern of race and ethnicity to socioeconomic status in the admissions process, not only will Amherst become more racially and ethnically diverse, but that this diversity will be genuine and encompass a broad section of the Black community. If students of color are more likely to come from underprivileged backgrounds due to institutional racism, then focusing directly on socioeconomic status allows us to address the systemic barriers that have historically limited access to higher education for marginalized groups, like the Black community, and resolve the 3% conundrum.

However, this warrants will on the part of the admissions committee: the will to be bold and decisive, the will to do what is right, and, most crucially, what is requisite for Amherst to thrive. White wealthy and privileged men went to Amherst decades ago to study finance and learn how to perpetuate inequitable systems of wealth and power, so I — an international low-income student from the Balkans — can now discuss U.S. foreign policy in a class filled with brilliant minds spanning continents and a professor who speaks English as a second language. We must not lose this vitality that is at the very core of our beloved institution.

Diversity is not just progressive propaganda. I need conservative classmates as much as I need centrists and liberals so I can be enriched intellectually and culturally and have my opinion perpetually checked by those who have a perspective different from mine. The same applies to Black students, who have been historically underrepresented in academics and were betrayed by the Amherst community. Their keen and inspiring voices are irrefutably paramount in our daily lives and classroom discussions. With a more uniform landscape on campus, we risk developing a weaker empathy and a poorer life experience, losing the intellectual virility that is so emblematic of Amherst, the best liberal arts college in the world (Williams wishes they were us).

As students, we can ensure this homogenization will not happen only by being proactive and outspoken and by doing our part: there is currently only one woman representing the class of 2028 in the AAS, and the threshold for the Access Grant has been tacitly raised by $5000 to now $85,000. Mammoth, what legacy do you want to build together — one defined by complacency, or one driven by courage and genuine inclusion?