In 1928, Brown had a problem. Despite its reputation as a finishing school for white elites from the East Coast, 38% of the class of 1928 was Jewish. These young men were largely the sons of Russian Jewish immigrants and hailed from public schools, which was considered a real shonda — a scandal — for an elite institution such as Brown.
The University responded by working expeditiously to exclude Jewish students by implementing legacy admissions to preference WASP children who had historically attended Brown, geographic diversity to penalize students from cities with large Jewish immigrant populations, and personal interviews to exclude applicants based on their appearances. It worked — just 9% of the class of 1944 was Jewish, and the rate of admissions for Protestant students was consistently double that of Jewish students throughout the ’30s and ’40s.
This history is shameful, and the University has yet to apologize for it. Yet, Brown continues to practice identity-based discrimination against women applicants. This is a mistake. History shows that when universities pick and choose which identities are valuable, they will be judged for it.
Administrators tried to justify the antisemitic bigotry that led to the exclusion of Jewish students at Brown and other Ivy League schools, in part, by the theory that it was for the benefit of Jewish people. Harvard President Abbott Lawrence Lowell argued that quotas were “even more important to the Jews than to anyone else” because they supposedly protected them from antisemitism.
This “benevolent” bigotry — discrimination that administrators excuse because they believe it serves the greater good — was repeated, more recently, by schools such as Harvard in its discrimination against Asian applicants and by Brown in its discrimination against women applicants.
In 2023, 24% of Brown first-years were Asian. At Harvard, the number was even greater at 37%. But in the zero-sum game of elite college admissions, overrepresentation simultaneously necessitates the underrepresentation of other groups, as spots are scarce. This poses a challenge when universities aim to admit a class that represents the United States.
To help correct this imbalance, universities relied on tactics from the ’20s — character and appearance ratings were reformed as “personal ratings.” To the Harvard admissions officer of the 1920s, a Jewish applicant was “a better scholar than the Gentile” but also “more prone to dishonesty and sexual offenses.” To the Harvard admissions officer of the 2020s, Asian applicants were less likable, courageous, kind or well-respected. These supposed character flaws could justify worse admissions outcomes despite Asian American applicants, on average, having higher test scores, grades and stronger extracurricular activity ratings.
Despite the Supreme Court, commendably, finding the discriminatory practice of race-based affirmative action in college admissions illegal, universities such as Brown continue to discriminate against another protected class in admissions: women.
Last year, Brown received nearly 50,000 applications and admitted around 2,600 students. Roughly 60% of these applicants were women, yet the school admitted an even number of men and women. This means that, on average, 7% of men who applied were admitted, while just 4.4% of women were.
Theoretically, this gap could be explained by other omitted variables — maybe they are less qualified. Perhaps in the historical logic of admissions officers, women applicants are of poorer character and worse personality. Yet I personally find it difficult to believe that these explanations can explain a 59% higher admission rate for men. Women perform comparably to men in national standardized tests and tend to earn higher grades.
It’s time to call this practice what it is — sexism. While this discrimination is not explicitly prohibited by Title IX, as admissions to private universities are generally exempt, the University is exploiting a carve-out partially designed to protect single sex colleges, which Brown is not. This could potentially put the University in legal jeopardy.
While we can consider whether this type of sex discrimination is legal, we should also ask ourselves whether it is right. There are truly compelling social and societal reasons why an even sex ratio or racial diversity improves the college experience. I don’t discount that. I personally believe my college experience has been improved by attending a school with both. However, I firmly believe that the way to end discrimination is by not discriminating. Women work hard in school, as do Asian Americans and Jewish Americans, and they should not be put at a disadvantage because of their identity.
I share concerns about the achievement gaps of boys and racial minorities. I believe the University should continue to explore race and sex-neutral practices that encourage underrepresented groups to apply. But fundamentally, I also know that elite universities cannot, by virtue of their inherent exclusivity, solve education inequality in the United States. Uplifting one group should not come at the expense of others. It betrays the ideals of the American dream that if you work hard, you will reap the rewards.
What’s common to all three of these cases is a belief on the part of University officials that they know better which kinds of students — on account of religion, race or sex — the University needs and which kinds it doesn’t. This judgment should not be within their purview — university officials can be prejudiced, too.
When we look back at Brown’s experience with Jewish quotas, we look back with horror and wonder how they could do such a thing. Yet even today, we repeat the mistakes of the past. This should inspire humility. Brown must learn from this history and end the picking and choosing of which forms of diversity the University values.
Tas Rahman ’26 can be reached at tasawwar_rahman@brown.edu. Please send responses to this opinion to letters@browndailyherald.com and other op-eds to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
Tas Rahman is an Opinion Editor and a member of the Editorial Page Board. He hails from Detroit, Michigan and is concentrating in Computational Biology and Judaic Studies. In his free time, you can find Tas hiking and reading the Atlantic (alongside the Herald).
