We see them in our classrooms and cultural shows, in our labs and on our sports teams. They are often distinguished by a strange accent, a distinct garb, a new perspective in a classroom discussion, or even by a modest “eh” at the end of a sentence. Stanford’s international undergraduate students add inestimably to campus culture, talent and diversity. These exceptional men and women often travel far from everything they have known to experience the benefits of a Stanford education, and, as a consequence, enrich the undergraduate experience of all students. Nevertheless, systemic inequity in the Stanford admission process bars many talented students from entry into our classrooms, and prohibits the best applications from ever reaching our school.

Stanford proudly touts the fact that 80 percent of its undergraduates are on some form of financial assistance. The University further advertises that for all domestic applicants, admission is need-blind, meaning that students are considered based solely on merit and not on ability to pay tuition. However, for 7 percent of the class of 2011, the admission process did not depend so much on meritocracy. International students are forced to let the University know, on their applications, whether they will ever require financial aid. Those who tick the box face an additional level of screening, which, in the case of the class of 2010, cut their acceptance rate down to 3 percent. This bias is well known among international applicants, who often choose not to apply at all, or who foreclose on the opportunity to ever take aid and later face severe financial hardship.

In its treatment of international students, Stanford is far behind its peer institutions. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth and MIT are all need-blind for all applicants, regardless of citizenship. On average, these institutions have three times the number of international students on financial aid.

Frankly, current admission policy betrays the University’s basic tenets of fairness and meritocracy. Jane Stanford directed the University to “open an avenue whereby the deserving and exceptional may rise through their own efforts from the lowest to the highest station in life.” The notion that applicants from one country should be judged on a lower academic scale due to wealthy donors from that country is as absurd as applicants from Texas being favored to those from other states if wealthy Texans sponsor the University. Our peer institutions have long forsaken such classist, inequitable and aristocratic policies in shaping their admission departments. Yet, Stanford has seen fit to continue judging international applicants by different standards than all other students.

Stanford administrators have nearly uniformly expressed desire for need-blind admission. Karen Cooper, the Director of Financial Aid, said she would “love to be need-blind for international students.” John Pearson, Director of the Bechtel International Center, said that, “ideally, it would be wonderful to be at the same state as [our] peer schools,” and that we would likely see increased diversity on campus were we to implement need-blind financial aid. In the past, President Hennessy has also expressed a desire to make Stanford need-blind for all students. There has also been no shortage of student outcry against the current policy; since 2006, there have been six Daily articles citing the need for more international financial aid.

Of course, the principal obstacle to need-blind international admission is cost. The University estimates that such a policy would cost an additional $25-$30 million a year, requiring a $250-$300 million addition to our endowment to be sustainable. The University has stated that it would be difficult to secure donations dedicated solely to international financial aid, and further that domestic financial aid can be subsidized by federal and state grants, whereas international aid cannot receive such subsidies. Furthermore, donations to international financial aid are often given with the caveat that they be applied only to applicants of a particular nationality, while international students are ineligible for government grants and loans.

These difficulties, while substantial, should not keep Stanford from throwing its full weight behind universal need-blind admission. After all, the University holds most of the chips; federal and state grants contributed only $8 million to domestic financial aid this year, compared to $118 million from Stanford.

At present, Stanford’s admission department suffers from a fundamental inefficiency. Students are being judged eligible for a Stanford education by different standards depending on their country of citizenship, meaning that more deserving students are either denied admission in favor of less deserving ones, or don’t even apply, reducing the competitiveness of every class to graduate from our University. U.S. citizens and international students alike should cry out against a policy that denies them the opportunity to collaborate with and learn from the best that the world has to offer. The world should lament the loss of future leaders that may have emerged, had they had access to a Stanford education.

It is difficult to believe that this University, which has recently finished construction of gorgeous new business, law and engineering facilities, cannot now apply its astounding wherewithal towards opening the American Dream — the Stanford Dream — to any deserving student regardless of geographic origin. While we recognize the challenges associated with this proposition, this Editorial Board urges the University to adopt need-blind admission for all students. In a flat world, we simply can no longer afford to keep turning away the world’s most promising young men and women.