Supreme Court finds no bias towards Asian/Americans in college admissions

Harvard University, above, faces the same charges of bias as the University of Texas.

By Louis Chan
Reprinted from AsAm News

A  CLOSER LOOK at the majority opinion in Fisher v University of Texas reveals the four Supreme Court Justices found no discrimination against Asian/Americans in holistic admissions.

By a four to three vote, the justices ruled the University of Texas did not discriminate against Abigail Fisher, a White student who did not rank in the top 10 percent of her high school class, when it rejected her application.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:

Therefore, although admissions officers can consider race as a positive feature of a minority student’s applica­tion, there is no dispute that race is but a “factor of a factor of a factor” in the holistic-review calculus. 645 F. Supp. 2d 587, 608 (WD Tex. 2009). Furthermore, con­sideration of race is contextual and does not operate as a mechanical plus factor for underrepresented minorities. Id.,at 606 (“Plaintiffs cite no evidence to show racial groups other than African Americans and Hispanics are excluded from benefiting from UT’s consideration of race in admissions. As the Defendants point out, the consider­ation of race, within the full context of the entire applica­tion, may be beneficial to any UT Austin applicant—including Whites and Asian Americans”); see also Brief for Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund et al. as Amici Curiae 12 (the contention that the University discriminates against Asian Americans is “entirely un­supported by evidence in the record or empirical data”). There is also no dispute, however, that race, when consid­ered in conjunction with other aspects of an applicant’s background, can alter an applicant’s PAS score. Thus, race, in this indirect fashion, considered with all of the other factors that make up an applicant’s AI and PAI scores, can make a difference to whether an application is accepted or rejected.

RELATED: Read the entire ruling by the Supreme Court majority 

The decision is a blow to some Asian/American groups, most of whom represent first-generation Chinese/Americans, who contend Asian/Americans have been rejected and less qualified Blacks, Hispanics and Whites have taken their spots.

It’s also a blow to a lawsuit filed by Students for Fair Admissions, which has actively courted Asian/American groups to its side. The Students for Fair Admissions was founded by Edward Blum, Fisher's attorney, who is associated with several cases trying to dismantle affirmative action programs.

RELATED: Who is really behind the Students for Fair Admissions?

Students for Fair Admissions filed a discrimination case against both Harvard and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill which is very similar to the Fisher case.

“At Harvard, we strive to foster a diverse campus community that prepares our students to thrive as citizens and as leaders in an increasingly connected world and global economy,” Harvard University President Drew G. Faust said. “We are pleased that today’s Supreme Court’s ruling in Fisher v. the University of Texas has upheld this integral value.”

RELATED: Asians being used as pawns to fight affirmative action

Law professor Laurence H. Tribe took it one step further.

In the Harvard Crimson he called the decision in Fisher “favorable to what Harvard has tried to do over the years to overcome racial stereotypes.” He went on to say the lawsuit by Students for Fair Admissions is “overwhelmingly likely to fail.”

However, don’t expect those who contend Asian/Americans are victims of bias to go away.

Affirmative action opponents might be cheered by the dissenting opinion written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who read his dissent from his seat:

It pointed to a study showing that African American, Hispanic, and Asian American students were underrepresented in many classes. See Supp. App. 26a. But UT has never shown that its race-conscious plan actually ameliorates this situation. The University pre­sents no evidence that its admissions officers, in adminis­tering the “holistic” component of its plan, make any effort to determine whether an African American, Hispanic, or Asian American student is likely to enroll in classes in which minority students are underrepresented. And although UT’s records should permit it to determine with­out much difficulty whether holistic admittees are any more likely than students admitted through the Top Ten Percent Law, Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §51.803 (West Cum.Supp.2015), to enroll in the classes lacking racial or eth­nic diversity, UT either has not crunched those numbers or has not revealed what they show. Nor has UT explained why the under representation of Asian American students in many classes justifies its plan, which discrim­inates against those students.

(Views From the Edge contributed to this report.) 

###

AAPIs react to Supreme Court's ruling upholding affirmative action's goals

By Louis Chan
Reprinted from AsAm News

By a 4-3 majority, this morning (June 23) the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the use of race in admissions at the University of Texas as constitutional.

The case was filed by Abigail Fisher, a white student, who alleged the university passed her over for admissions in favor of less qualified minority students.

"The Court’s affirmation of the University’s admissions policy does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “It is the university’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies.”

RELATED: AAPI groups file briefs in Fisher vs. Texas case

Only seven justices participated in the decision because Justice Elena Kagan recused herself due to her participation in the case when she worked as Solicitor General.

The seat of the late Antonin Scalia remains vacant because the Republican Senate majority refuses to put up the nomination of Justice Merrick Garland for a vote.

RELATED: Asians & affirmative action

“We are pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges the continued need for affirmative action policies that make it possible for students of all backgrounds, including many historically disadvantaged Asian American and Pacific Islanders, to access higher education and create a stronger country through their contributions to a diverse society,” said Mee Moua, president and executive director of Advancing Justice | AAJC to AsAmNews.

Affirmative action has divided the Asian/American community with second and third generation Asian/Americans generally in support of it, and first-generation immigrants, primarily Chinese/Americans, opposed.

Among those outspoken against affirmative action is 80-20, a political action committee, lead by former Delaware Lieutenant Governor S.B. Woo.

RELATED: A closer look at the complaint vs. Ive League schools

“Asian Americans on average must give 140 SAT points to white applicants,” said Woo this morning to AsAmNews. “It’s such a resounding contradiction that Fisher v University of Tex didn’t emphasize enough. If I had the money, it takes millions, I would challenge the university on exactly that point and work it on that point. Forget the Hispanics, forget the Blacks, just make a straight forward comparison between Asian Americans and White.

Woo pointed out the Supreme Court made it a point to say their decision does not mean the “University may rely on the same policy without refinement.”

“I’m not saying it's a victory at all,” Woo clarified. “It’s a victory for the current admission program. However, know what the court said. It requires refinement.”

###

400,000 undocumented Asian immigrants in California may be impacted by Supreme Court ruling

Journalist Jose Antonio Vargas,was among the hundreds of immigration activists demonstrating outside the Supreme Court as the justices heard arguments in the case challenging President Obama's executive actions on immigration.

LAST MONDAY (April 18) at the U.S. Supreme Court, the eight justices heard oral arguments for and against President Obama's executive actions on immigration: Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Based on questions from the Supreme Court justices, it appears to court-watchers that the case will end in a 4-4 tie based on party lines. That would be bad news for the White House. The high court has been operating one justice short since the death of Antonin Scalia in February.

If SCOTUS remains deadlocked in the U.S. vs. Texas, the lower court ruling that said the president went too far in his executive actions would stand, voiding Obama's effort on  immigration reform.

“We know that DAPA and expanded DACA stand on the right side of the law,” said Stewart Kwoh, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles. “In the last five decades, Presidents from both sides of the aisle have taken executive action to shape immigration priorities.”

RELATED: Asians are part of the immigration debate

The decision could impact about 4 million undocumented immigrants; 400,000 of whom are from Asia. Asian immigrants have surpassed immigrants coming from Latin America.

In California, an estimated 15 percent of the state’s undocumented residents are Asian, comprising approximately 416,000 people. Of those, 130,000 are in Los Angeles County and 52,000 are in Orange County. Statewide, Advancing Justice-LA estimates that the largest groups of undocumented Asians are: Filipinos (143,000), Chinese (76,000), Koreans (71,000), Vietnamese (60,000), and Asian Indian (46,000).

RELATED: Dreaming with the American dreamers

"For the average person, what's at stake is: What are you going to do with all of these millions of undocumented people?" asked Jose Antonio Vargas in an interview with Rolling Stone. Vargas is a Filipino/American immigration advocate who himself is undocumented.

"It's been perpetual limbo for them. Nothing is getting done. Congress is saying the president is overreaching, but I would argue that Congress has been irresponsible in not doing anything," said Vargas.

RELATED: Jose Antonio Vargas - an undocumented American

“While the legal battle ensues and anti-immigrant campaigns on the state and national level continue, we must remember that these actions have a real human cost,” said Anthony Ng, immigrant rights policy advocate at Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles (Advancing Justice-LA). “A ruling against DAPA won’t just impact undocumented immigrants; it will impact their families, as well as our neighborhoods and communities.”

###

For more news about Asian/Americans & Pacific Americans, read AsAm News.

Supreme Court ruling rejects attempt to douse minority representation

THE SUPREME COURT'S ruling in a case protected the rights of millions of Asian/Americans to be represented in the halls of government.

The surprise unanimous decision (8-0) was a setback for conservatives who were trying to limit the influence of minority voters and Democrats. The court's ruling said that when drawing up legislative districts for Congress, state legislators or even county and city districts, the total population should be counted, not just registered voters. 

The ruling would mean millions of Asian/Americans who are too young to vote or not yet citizens or who simply haven't registered to vote, would still be represented by lawmakers.  Just 55% of the more than 16 million Asians in the U.S. are adult citizens, according to a Pew report. By comparison, large majorities of whites (79%) and blacks (71%) are citizens of legal voting age.

"Everyone counts in our nation's democratic process," Christopher Kang, national director of the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, said in a statement. "The lives of every individual in the United States — whether or not they are eligible to vote — are affected by government policies and therefore deserve representation." 

In affirming a lower court's ruling in Evenwel v. Abbott, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing for the court said there was no reason to constitutionally require that voter eligibility, instead of the total number of residents, be used when drawing up legislative districts.

Justice Ruth Ginsberg

"Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates — children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong public-education system — and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies," Ginsburg wrote.

The case brought before the Supreme Court originated in Texas and was directed agains the Latino/American population there but districts in California, with large Asian populations, also would have been affected.

The plaintiffs in the case, both Republican officials, clearly were aiming to lessen the influence of Democrats. Of the 33 districts where voting-age citizens make up less than 60% of the population, 28 are held by Democrats; Democrats represent 18 of the lowest-ranking 20. On the other end, Republicans represent 35 of the 47 districts where 77% or more of the population are voting-age citizens, and 17 of the highest 20.

The High Court left open the door that if another way of redistricting other than using the voting rolls or total population could be found and pass legal muster, Monday's ruling could be revisited.

###

For more news about Asian/Americans & Pacific Islanders, read AsAm News.