Any time I see this come up it always feels like asian students are being used a cudgel in order increase admissions for white students.
Group A is 5% of the overall population, but 15% of the best admissions to a college, and the college ends up being 10% from group A.
You can disagree with it, as I do (where I don't expect every non-racial sub-population to show proportions of race corresponding to the total population) but how can you not comprehend what he's saying? Like, you don't understand it? Come on, postulate a few explanations in English for what it could possibly mean.
In fact, it's past the time time to address your question, and start using the term consistently. Stanford themselves boast how "underrepresented minorities" are the fastest growing group [1], without defining the term. Presumably they mean relative to population, but somehow they don't count whites among that group, despite them being, at Stanford, both under-represented and a minority.
We would all greatly benefit if, instead of being so coy, they would openly state: "Yes, there are fewer non-Jewish whites than what would be expected from population numbers, but that is because they're just not smart enough."
After all, how can the conversation advance, if the participants are dishonest, hiding or ignoring data as is convenient?
[1] https://news.stanford.edu/report/2021/12/08/underrepresented...
The implication may be clear to you and I, but the post I replied to was literally asking what over-represented means (what, not who). Presumably they would ask the same of that Stanford article.
Also - grouping all Asian groups is racist in itself. It's implying that Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Thai, Vietnamese are the same, which is patently false.
This sentence comes out as both racist and elitist at the same time.