AANHPI respond with anger at SCOTUS ruling against affirmative action

TWITTER / MAYA WILEY

Demonstrations broke out after the Supreme Court rendered its decision on affirmative action.

In its dogged determination to send the US back to the 1950s, the US Supreme Court's ruling Thursday against affirmative action in college admissions drew sharp and angry criticism from the AANHPI leaders, from Vice President Kamala Harris and civil rights advocates to the students on campus.

"The highest court in our land just made a decision today on affirmative action and I feel compelled to speak about it," said Harris, whose mother is from India.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is a denial of opportunity. It’s not about being colorblind. It’s about being blind to history, blind to empirical evidence about disparities, and blind to the strength that diversity brings to classrooms, to boardrooms,” Harris said on Twitter.

The GOP-dominated Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling Thursday on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolin, undermines the Court’s long-standing support for affirmative action in higher education.

The Republican appointees of the Court struck a deep blow to students and racial equity in education by holding that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's affirmative action programs violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

“Affirmative action policies have helped colleges and universities across our country cultivate more diverse student bodies. These commonsense policies recognize that diversity on campuses benefits all students, and help to advance racial equity. But once again, this extreme Supreme Court has taken our country backwards," said Senator Mazie Hirono, D-HI. 

"Given our country’s long history of racial discrimination and the stark racial inequality that continues to this day, for Justices to focus on whether the benefits of diversity can be measured precisely is shortsighted and detached from reality. Diversity of every kind makes us stronger," said Hirono.

Asian American Legal Education Fund and Asian Americans Advancing Justice were two of many groups who filed friends of the court briefs supporting the admission policies of both schools.

“The Supreme Court has rolled back progress in the fight for racial justice by undermining affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC. By pitting communities of color against each other, the Court’s decision discounts broad Asian American support for race-conscious admissions and the importance of ensuring diversity in our classrooms. Together with other communities of color, we will continue to ensure that the pathways to opportunity and leadership are open to all,” said Margaret Fung, executive director of AALDEF.

“It makes me angry to see the Supreme Court wield the history of the Equal Protection Clause and the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education in a way that is antithetical to its purpose," said Bethany Li, legal director of AALDEF. "Brown helped desegregate our schools and give students of color a fighting chance at a good education. 

"The decision today uses the false myth of color blindness to undermine an important tool for correcting these disparities. When you purport to be color blind, you're saying you don't see race. But if you don't see race, you don't see the disparities in education, in health, in jobs, and in society at large that racial minorities including Asian Americans have historically faced and continue to face today,” 

“We are outraged that the Supreme Court has chosen to ignore long-standing legal precedent in favor of supporting racial inequity that harms all people of color, including Asian Americans,” said John C. Yang, President and Executive Director of Advancing Justice – AAJC. “But we are more committed than ever to ensuring equal opportunity for our children – and for all children in this country. We will not let this court decision keep us from pushing colleges and universities, Congress, and others to keep today’s ruling from undermining the progress made toward educating future multiracial, talented leaders who deserve every opportunity to reach their highest potential on campuses that reflect the diversity of America.”

RELATED: Strongly worded dissenting opinions say race matters

““Racism and anti-Blackness are inescapable in our country, and race-conscious admissions are a crucial tool in expanding opportunities for students of color that reckons with those realities," said Aarti Kohli, Executive Director of Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus.

"For Asian Americans, this ruling will particularly harm Pacific Islander, Native Hawaiian, and Southeast Asian communities who continue to face significant barriers to higher education. At a moment when our country is increasingly segregated and there are significant gaps in resources for majority minority schools, we call on Congress, our local elected leaders, and universities to do everything in their power to implement solutions we really need for economic equity and racial justice in our nation.”

“For Asian American students and all others, racially diverse student bodies both enhance their learning and foster understanding of each student’s lived experience,” said Connie Chung Joe, CEO of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. “In our ever-changing global economy and platform, we must continue to give all students the opportunity to fulfill their potential and shape a future built strong on our biggest asset – our diversity.”

“We unequivocally condemn the ruling by the Supreme Court to reverse these affirmative action policies, thus ensuring that systemic racism continues to be embedded in higher education,” said Grace Pai, Executive Director of Advancing Justice – Chicago. “As Asian Americans, we will not allow our communities to be used as a prop by the conservative movement to advance a white supremacist agenda.”

“Declaring these race conscious policies unconstitutional is a barely disguised tool to once again remove students of color from our nation’s campuses and perpetuate the historical legacy of institutionalized racism in education that continues, especially in the south,” said Phi Nguyen, Executive Director of Advancing Justice – Atlanta. “We will continue to fight for racial justice and ensure that everyone has access to a quality education.”

“Affirmative action is not only beneficial for Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders (AANHPI), but for all students and society as a whole” said OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates President Linda Ng. “By preventing holistic affirmative action policies from being implemented, the Supreme Court has ignored the reality of persistent institutional bias, racial discrimination, and inequality in our country - undermining the efforts of educators and advocates to create more equitable and diverse learning environments.”

“Today’s decision is an absolute gut punch to our country’s efforts in creating a more inclusive society for all. Affirmative action policies have been the victim of years of a well-funded intentionally dishonest misinformation campaign. Because of today’s ruling, we will see less diverse student bodies, a less prepared workforce, and ultimately a less competitive economy,” said OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates VP of Public Affairs Kendall Kosai. “Our nation’s future depends on racial equity and diversity in higher education to achieve a thriving, multiracial democracy. We must all continue to work together to achieve that goal, no matter the decision of the Supreme Court.”

Some responses, including members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) hinted what might happen in order to make up for the absence of affirmative action.

CAPAC Whip Rep. Ted Lieu, D-CA urged that colleges use other strategies to maintain campus diversity.

“I strongly oppose the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College," said Lieu. "The majority opinion, however, contains a critical exception that I urge all colleges and universities to utilize: ‘nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.’ Many colleges and universities already employ this type of holistic admissions policy to achieve diversity on their student body mix and I urge them to continue to do so. When colleges reflect the diversity of America, all our communities are strengthened.”

Some members of Congress want to expand the Supreme Court's decision to include other traditional school admission practices that give preferences to White applicants.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to end the consideration of race as a factor in college admissions is a significant setback in our effort to eliminate disparities in access to higher education and ensure diverse learning environments for all students," said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-VA, who is the ranking member f the House Education and Workforce Committee.

"It is now imperative that we review other facets in college admissions that research shows are racially discriminatory and have a disparate impact and determine if they too need to be eliminated, given today’s ruling," said Scott, whose ancestors include Filipino immigrants. 

"Race-conscious admissions policies provided a counterbalance to these discriminatory factors—such as inequitable K-12 schools, racially biased admissions tests, and developmental and legacy admissions—that all marginalize students of color. Now that the Court has invalidated that balance, I call on the Attorney General to start filing cases now against any current school practices that violate the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act because they have discriminatory impact.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow @DioknoEd on Twitter or at his blog Views From the Edge.

Race matters, Jackson, Sotomayor give eloquent, angry defense of affirmative action

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the conservative majority.

OPINION

Even though the US Supreme Court's ruling overturning affirmative action was expected, it didn't lessen the anger that still rose up Thursday morning. I'm furious.

The Supreme Court released their decision Thursday saying that Harvard's admission policy discriminated against Asian students applying to the school and ruled that the University of North Carolina's use of race to achieve a diverse student body was against the Constitution.

The vote was 6-3 in the complaint against UNC with the conservative justices in the majority. In Harvard's case, the vote was 6-2 with Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recusing herself because she was until, recently, a member of Harvard’s board of overseers.

The complaints against both schools was filed by Students for Fair Admissions, a questionable group headed by anti-affirmative action activist Ed Blum, who has been trying to end the policy for decades. In the case against Harvard, SFFA claimed that the school's affirmative action policy discriminated against Asian American applicants, who never showed up in court to testify.

The gist of the SCOTUS rulings was that schools could not use race as a factor in evaluating students applying for admission.

Personally, race helps define who I am. People who say they are color-blind -- and that includes the six conservative justices -- don't see me. The SCOTUS majority is saying my life experiences as a Filipino American does not matter.

To be clear, in the cases of Harvard and UNC, race is simply one of many factors used in evaluating student applicants, much like family income, a GPA, test scores and extra-curricular activities are factors. To say race doesn't matter, the Court erases a major part of my life story that forms my world view, my personality, my values. To say race doesn't matter, the Court majority says I don't matter.

FYI: Read the US Supreme Court ruling.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the two women of color on the Court and both beneficiaries of "affirmative action" programs, in their scathing dissenting views, say it better than I can.

Sotomayor warned the decision will have a "devastating impact" on the United States. The SCOTUS majority's "vision of race neutrality will entrench racial segregation in higher education because racial inequality will persist so long as it is ignored."

In the Harvard case, Sotomayor wrote “that race can no longer be used in a limited way in college admissions,” the Court basically “cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter.”

Sotomayor, a Puerto Rican who grew up in low-income housing projects and benefited from affirmative action policy herself, wrote in defense of the UNC admission policy of using race as one of several factors in evaluating student applicants to the public university. 

"The majority’s vision of race neutrality will entrench racial segregation in higher education because racial inequality will persist so long as it is ignored," she wrote. "Despite the Court’s unjustified exercise of power, the opinion today will serve only to highlight the Court’s own impotence in the face of an America whose cries for equality resound."

Jackson's no less fiery dissent of the UNC ruling, was a masterclass in the history of racism and affirmative action. Her dissenting opinion will likely be used in educating future lawyers.

"Our country has never been colorblind. Given the lengthy history of state-sponsored race-based preferences in America, to say that anyone is now victimized if a college considers whether that legacy of discrimination has unequally advantaged its applicants fails to acknowledge the well documented “intergenerational transmission of inequality” that still plagues our citizenry," writes Brown Jackson, the first Black woman on the Supreme Court.

Jackson continues: “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, on Thursday, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat.” ... “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”

“If the colleges of this country are required to ignore a thing that matters, it will not just go away. It will take longer for racism to leave us. And, ultimately, ignoring race just makes it matter more.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is a developing story. check back later for updates and additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective. Follow @DioknoEd on Twitter or at his blog Views From the Edge.

AANHPI legal advocates reaffirm their support for affirmative action

The majority of Asian Americans support affirmative action.

Anxiety continues to build as civil rights and education advocates await the US Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action.

Days before an expected ruling, Asian Americans Advancing Justice (Advancing Justice) today (June 22) filed two amicus briefs before the Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, affirming their  longstanding support for race-conscious admissions in higher education.

Students for Fair Admissions, headed by conservative activist Edward Blum, has  unsuccessfully tried for years to end affirmative action by claiming it discriminates against White students.. The latest complaint against Harvard and the University of North Carolina is different from other attempts because it asserts the two schools' affirmative action admission policies discriminates against Asian American applicants.

Previous affirmative action cases brought before more moderate Supreme Courts have ruled in favor of the policy born in the 1960s to open the doors for students of color who for generations been denied the same opportunities and privileges as White students. However, most legal analysts believe that this particular Supreme Court might rule against affirmative action because of thet a 6-3 conservative majority that doesn't respect legal precedent. 

“For centuries, communities of color, including Asian Americans, have struggled against racial discrimination and faced systemic barriers to education, employment, and immigration, among other challenges,” said John C. Yang, President and Executive Director of Advancing Justice – AAJC. “Race, ethnicity, and our lived experiences are integral parts of our personal story and collective history. Holistic admissions ensures all students have the opportunity to share their whole story in addition to their academic achievements.”

The five organizations comprising the Advancing Justice affiliation, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Lawyers For Civil Rights, and pro bono counsel Arnold & Porter filed an amicus brief on behalf of a multiracial group of alumni students of color at Harvard who support holistic admissions policies that take into account the entirety of a student’s assets and experiences.

In their brief, the student and alumni amici, or "friends of the court," briefs attested to how a diverse campus benefits all students, including addressing racial isolation and increasing cross-racial understanding and cultural competency that better prepared them for their professional careers. Asian American amici also affirmed benefiting from race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard, which provided them the opportunity to share their whole story, including their race and ethnicity, background, and diverse experiences.

The Advancing Justice affiliation with pro bono counsel, Ballard Spahr, submitted a separate amicus brief joined by 37 Asian American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (AANHPI) civil rights groups, advocacy organizations, professionals, and student organizations in support of race-conscious admissions programs that improve equal access to educational opportunities for all.

The amicus brief affirms that Harvard and UNC’s race-conscious admissions programs do not discriminate against AAPI students, but rather expand their access to higher education. The brief also highlights the educational benefits of racial diversity for AAPI communities and asserts that eliminating the consideration of race in admissions programs will harm AAPI and other students of color.

Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto, former Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, former partner/now senior counsel at Ballard Spahr LLP, adds, “We are proud to work with Advancing Justice to support holistic admissions policies that have allowed countless numbers of students to attain great heights and contribute to bettering society for us all. We must continue to cultivate the potential of all students -- including all who have struggled and continue to struggle against discrimination -- to bring us closer to the promise of an equitable society we all deserve.”

Most nonpartisan polls have found that the great majority of AANHPI support affirmative action's goals of equal opportunity.

“Our communities know better than to give into extremist strategist Edward Blum’s years-long mission to deny Black, Latinx, Asian American, and other communities of color equal voting rights and educational opportunities,” said Aarti Kohli, Executive Director of Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus. “As a parent, my children have had more chances to grow and thrive because of affirmative action, diversity, and anti-discrimination programs in our education systems. As a civil rights lawyer, there’s no question these attacks on the constitutionality of race conscious programs are a thinly veiled strategy to limit educational opportunities for all students of color.”

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision before the end of June.

“For too long, the model minority myth has propagated a false premise that AAPIs don’t benefit from race conscious admissions practices,” said Connie Chung Jose, CEO, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California (AJSOCAL). 

“The reality is that our communities also face discrimination and barriers to opportunities that race conscious admissions can address," Jose continued. "And for AAPI students and other students of color, having a racially diverse student body is not only important to their educational experience, but often necessary to fully articulate the hurdles, achievements, and personal development experiences intrinsic to college admissions evaluations.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow @DioknoEd on Twitter or at his blog Views From the Edge.

Asian Americans support for affirmative action wavers when it comes to college admissions

ANALYSIS 

UPDATED 1:30 a.m., June 11, 2023

A majority of Asian Americans approve affirmative action programs overall but when it comes to getting their own kids into college, that's another matter.

Although, in general, most Asian Americans like the idea and goals of affirmative action programs in employment and awarding of grants or contracts, a new survey by the Pew Research Center found that Asian Americans' view of affirmative action is more nuanced than a simple yea or nay across the board.

Based on a large multi-language survey of Asian American adults living in the US, the Pew analysis finds about half of those who have heard of affirmative action (53%) say it is a good thing, while 19% say it is a bad thing and 27% say they don’t know whether it is good or bad. 

FYI: Read the entire Pew Research Center analysis here.

However, when asked about affirmative action in college admissions, the survey reveals a reversal of opinion. The survey finds about three-quarters of Asian Americans (76%) say race or ethnicity should not factor into college admissions decisions. 

By the end of June, the right-wing dominated US Supreme Court is expected to issue their rulings in two affirmative action complaints brought forth by the anti-affirmative action group, Students for Fair Admissions headed by conservative activist Edward Blum.

In an attempt to appear less racist, Blum's complaint against the Harvard and University of North Carolina is alleging that the schools' admission programs are biased against Asian applicants.

Blum is using the high value Asian Americans place on a good education from prestigious schools as the door to economic security and opportunities to convince some Asian Americans that their children with high grades and test scores are being denied admission so that "less-qualified" applicants (code for Blacks and Latinos) can secure placement.

Both Harvard and UNC deny any racial bias towards Asians in their admission process, a claim supported by the rulings by lower courts.

Most Asian American civil rights organizations support affirmative action, including the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund and Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC) both of which have filed briefs in support of race-conscious admissions.

However, when asked by Pew about a list of factors that colleges should consider, only 21% of Asian adults say colleges should consider race and ethnicity when deciding which students to accept. By contrast, Asian adults broadly say high school grades (87%), community service (71%) and standardized test scores (71%) should be factors considered in college admissions.

Lower shares say athletic ability (33%), family income (26%) and gender (17%) should be considered. Few Asian adults (10%) say schools should consider family connections or “legacies” in admissions.

Overall, majorities of Asian adults across gender, age, education and origin groups say race or ethnicity should not factor into college admissions. Similar shares of Indian (77%), Chinese (76%), Filipino (76%), Vietnamese (76%), Korean (72%) and Japanese (70%) American adults express this view.

This latest Pew survey is the latest in the nonpartisan Center’s series of in-depth analyses of public opinion among Asian Americans. It also features data from general population surveys of US adults and a qualitative study of Asian Americans. 

ABC

Asian Americans are at the center of the debate over affirmative action.

The Pew findings reinforce the complexity of the score of Asian communities that fall under the umbrella "Asian American" term. 

While, in general, Pew found that Asian Americans supported affirmative action as a policy to give equal opportunity for generations of intentional and unintentional, ingrained racist policies in institutions of government, education and finance.

However, when it came down to one's own family, Pew found that Asian American support seems to be less solid. Conservative media outlets jumped on that result  blaring out their own biased conclusions about a "divide" in the Asian American community giving the impression that affirmative action support is 50-50.

AAPI Data, which for years have reported through its own surveys that the support for  affirmative action was closer to 75% among Asian Americans, a finding that coincides with Pew's findings.

Janelle Wong, director of Asian American studies at the University of Maryland and senior researcher at AAPI Data, told NBC News that wording can significantly impact the way respondents perceive the role of race in admissions, particularly when the phrase “affirmative action” isn’t used.

“It’s not attached to a policy. It’s just saying, ‘Should race be considered?’ The way the law works, race can only be considered as one of many, many, many other factors and it can never be the primary factor, but the question wording makes it sound like it could be the primary factor,” Wong said. “There’s lots of different ways it could be interpreted and so that’s why we see that difference.”

Among the other key findings from this analysis:

• Nearly three-in-four Asian adults in the US (74%) say they have heard the phrase “affirmative action” before, with awareness varying across Asian demographic subgroups. For example, 91% of US-born Asians say this compared with 67% of Asian immigrants.

• Views of affirmative action among Asian Americans who have heard the term before diverge sharply by political party affiliation. Among Asian Americans, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say affirmative action is a good thing (64% vs. 32%). Notably, views of affirmative action among Asian Republicans vary by education level.

• When asked about a list of factors that colleges should consider in admissions decisions, only 21% of Asian adults say colleges should consider race and ethnicity when deciding which students to accept. By contrast, Asian adults broadly say high school grades (87%), standardized test scores (71%) and community service (71%) should be factors considered in college admissions. Lower shares say athletic ability (33%), family income (26%) and gender (17%) should be considered. Few Asian adults (10%) say schools should consider family connections or “legacies” in admissions

• Majorities of Asian adults across gender, age, education and origin subgroups say race should not factor in college admissions. For example, seven-in-ten or more Indian (77%), Chinese (76%), Filipino (76%), Vietnamese (76%), Korean (72%) and Japanese (70%) adults express this view.

As the Supreme Court decision hangs over June, the Asian American community finds itself at the center of the contentious debate. One way or the other, it will be affected.

It should be noted that Harvard's incoming freshman class this fall is around 23% Asian. Those Asian applicants who were turned away will most likely get accepted in other schools so their pursuit of the American Dream will continue.

However, as Asian Americans await the Supreme Court's decision later this month, they must face larger questions. Are they willing to perhaps suffer individual disappointments for a more equitable society offered by affirmative action; or will they  enjoy the opportunities traditionally reserved for Whites by keeping the doors shut to those who have historically been stymied by racist traditions?

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow @DioknoEd on Twitter or at his blog Views From the Edge.

Report: 80% of Asian American high school graduates go to college

Students demonstrate in front of the US Supreme Court.

Edited from The Hechinger Report

College degrees are increasing among all racial and ethnic groups in the US but racial gaps continue to exist. Asian Americans and Whites are far more likely to hold a college degree or earn one than Black, Hispanic or Native Americans, according to an article published in the Hechinger Report.

Students’ race and ethnicity affect their chances of earning a college degree, according to several new reports on higher education released in January and February 2023. However, the picture that emerges depends on the lens you use. College degrees are increasing among all racial and ethnic groups, but white and Asian Americans are far more likely to hold a college degree or earn one than Black, Hispanic or Native Americans.

Earning a college degree involves two steps: starting college and finishing college. Before the pandemic, white, Black and Hispanic Americans were enrolling in college at about the same rates, especially when unemployment was high and jobs were hard to find. Asian American college enrollment rate was the highest among all ethnic groups.

READ the complete original article about higher ed data written by Jill Barshay and published  by The Hechinger Report, which provided the portions included in this post.

The bigger distinction is that once a student has started college, the likelihood of making it through the coursework and tuition payments and ultimately earning a degree varies so much by race and ethnicity.

There are two ways to look at this. One is to see how the demographic makeup of college campuses has changed over time, becoming less white and more Hispanic. 

The pie charts below were produced in January by the National Student Clearinghouse, a nonprofit organization that provides data reporting services to colleges. In conjunction with these services, it monitors trends in higher education by aggregating the data submitted by more than 3,600 institutions, representing 97% of the students at the nation’s degree-granting colleges and universities. Earlier this year, the organization launched a DEI Data Lab site to put a spotlight on how college enrollment, persistence and completion vary by race and ethnicity.

In 2011, as the pie chart on the left shows, more than 60%of the nation’s 20.6 million college students were white, according to an estimate by the National Student Clearinghouse. By 2020, the year represented by the piechart on the right, the total number of college students had fallen to 17.8 million and the share of white students had dropped by almost 9 percentage points to 52%, still a majority.

During the same period, Asian students increased from 5 to 7% of the college population. However, the share of Hispanic students grew from 14% to 21%, and the share of Black students remained constant at just under 14%. This represents all undergraduate college students, both younger students entering straight after high school and older nontraditional students, studying full-time and part-time, and attending both four-year universities and two-year colleges.

What surprised the author was the college enrollment largely mirrorred each racial and ethnic group’s share of the general US population – with a few caveats. Asian Americans are slightly overrepresented on college campuses and Hispanic Americans are slightly underrepresented.

Another way to look at college enrollment is to see how many young adults enroll in college.

The chart below, by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows that the college enrollment rates for Asian Americans is 80%, the highest for all ethnic groups after the 2008 recession. Black and Hispanic young adults improved after the 2008 recession, and approached the college-going rate of white Americans. Roughly 60% of young Black, Hispanic and white Americans are trying for a college degree. The zigs and zags in this chart show how college going among Hispanic and Black Americans is influenced by business cycles.

Every race and ethnicity saw gains. The eight-percentage point gain was the same for both Black and white adults.

But racial gaps continue. In 2021, there remained an enormous 40 percentage point difference between Asian American adults, among whom 66% have a college degree, and Native American adults, among whom only 25% have a college degree. Among Black adults, 34% have college degrees. Among Hispanic adults, it’s 28% and among white adults, it’s 50%.

Improvements in college attainment can seem slow because graduation rates are much lower among Americans over 35. It takes years for higher college graduation rates among younger adults to raise overall college numbers. College attainment rates have jumped the fastest among young Hispanic adults under age 35, rising from below 20% in 2009 to above 30% in 2021. 

Courtney Brown, the chief data and research officer at Lumina, credits a variety of support programs, from tutoring to food pantries, and the convenience of online courses to explain why more young people are graduating, despite rising tuition costs. “Colleges are trying to serve students better,” said Brown. “Even the way they staff colleges, not all on getting enrollments but having more success coaches available and counselors helping students get to the finish line.”

Still, Brown acknowledges that it’s been difficult to make a dent in the stubborn gaps in college attainment between people of different races and ethnicities. “Unfortunately, everyone is increasing,” Brown said. “And so we are not seeing those gaps reduced.”

The reasons for why completion rates remain much lower for Black, Hispanic and Native American students are complex. These students are more likely to attend community colleges, which have lower funding per student and fewer support services. Many students weren’t adequately prepared in high schools to handle college-level coursework, especially in math.

A poll of Black college students by Gallup-Lumina, released on Feb. 9, found that 21% of Black students report feeling discriminated against frequently or occasionally at the college they are attending, and that 45% have considered dropping out in the past six months. Black students in bachelor’s programs are far more likely to juggle family and work responsibilities alongside their studies.

“Black students are encountering so much more discrimination, and they have multiple responsibilities that no other race or ethnicity really has,” said Lumina’s Brown. “A lot of it is that Black students are more likely to have children. Working full time, having children and trying to get a bachelor’s degree at the same time is just obviously overwhelming.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow @DioknoEd on Twitter.

Supreme Court: Conservative justices appear ready to end affirmative action

INSTAGRAM

Asian Americans supporting affirmative action rallied in front of the US Supreme Court Monday.

Any hope that the US Supreme Court would uphold 50 years of legal precedence favoring  affirmative action was dashed Monday.

It's pretty clear that the US Supreme Court has lost its veneer of equal justice after the court heard arguments in a pair of cases complaining about affirmative action's affecting college admission of Asian American students.

Based on the partiality of questioning Monday, Oct. 31, the six conservative justices on the 9-member High Bench appear poised to rule that the Harvard University and University of North Carolina admission policies discriminate against Asian American applicants.

As the Justices heard pro and con arguments against the two schools' admission policies, hundreds of Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander protestors from a score of community agencies were joined by demonstrators representing other ethnic groups who have historically been negatively impacted by racial bias. 

"We rally today on behalf of the majority of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islanders (AA and NHPI) who believe that affirmative action should be defended and our voices will not be manipulated by those who fear diversity," said the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans in a statement.

"Despite claims to the contrary, affirmative action has always been about communities of color being able to present their full stories when seeking a better education and a brighter future," their statement continues.

Affirmative action has been a bone of contention for some recent Asian American immigrants who believe that their children who were denied admission to those schools are better qualified than some of the admitted students from under-represented communities. 

That's the basis of the two cases in question, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and SFFA v. Harvard University. A ruling is expected by the summer of 2023.

Harvard and UNC argue that race is only one factor to consider as they use a holistic approach in deciding which students are accepted. Educators believe a diverse student body provides a better education for all students who must be prepared to function in a multi-cultural, multi-racial work environment. 

SFFA, headed by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, is naming Asian American students as plaintiffs -- none of which have testified in court -- to argue against the admission policies to avoid any appearance of White bias as the primary motive.

"To those within our community who disagree, we invite you to engage with us, rather than be used as a tool by those who seek to further disenfranchise communities of color. Our communities must stand together to embrace diversity," the NCAPA statement continued. "We stand united by the belief that affirmative action will uplift all of our communities to access equitable and inclusive education."

JACKSON RECUSAL

Inside the courthouse, attorneys representing the schools and the SFFA presented their cases to the Justices. The newest Justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, recused herself from the Harvard case because she served as a six-term member of Harvard's Board of Overseers until last spring. 

Her daughter, Leila, is currently a first-year student at Harvard. While she agreed to recuse herself from the Harvard case in her Senate confirmation hearing last spring at the request of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (also a Harvard Law School alum) legal experts said the loss of her voice as the first Black woman in the nation's top court strikes a blow to racial equity.

Jackson kept her word, unlike Justices Bret Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who told Senators that they would uphold 50 years of precedent in Roe v. Wade, the ruling that allowed women to have access to abortion, and then overturned it in last summer's Dobbs decision. 

SFFA, which lost in previous attempts to overturn affirmative action, is targeting Harvard and the University of North Carolina arguing that their programs violate equal protection principles, dash the promise of a colorblind society, and discriminate against Asian Americans. They are urging the court to overturn precedent and they say that the schools should explore and further develop race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity.

Lower US courts have ruled in favor of the schools finding that that the programs used race in a sufficiently limited way to fulfill a compelling interest in diversity. SFFA and conservative interests hope that the Supreme Court's conservative majority will overrule the lower courts as it acted against Roe v. Wade.

SCOTUS SCHISM

The divide in the Supreme Court was evident during the hearing with conservative justices harshly questioning Harvard and UNC's attorneys and the Solicitor General who spoke in favor of the school's admission policies. On the other hand, the three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Jackson were equally tough on SFFA attorneys. Although Jackson,recused herself from the Harvard case, she was allowed to participate in the UNC case.

Despite accusations of anti-Asian bias, About 22% of Harvard's first-year students in 2022 are Asian Americans or Pacific Islander. 10.7% as Black or African American, 6.5% as Hispanic or Latino, as American Indian or Alaska Native. Whites make up the biggest racial group, or 46%.

The court’s 6-3 conservative majority laid their cards on the table early by building a foundation of criticism against the court’s 50 years of precedents tht began with Bakke v. University of California, allowing the consideration of race including the 2003 SCOTUS ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger that allowed the University of Michigan Law School to consider race in its admissions process as part of its efforts to assemble a diverse student body.

Justice Samuel Alito dove into the heart of the argument used by the plaintiffs that the admission policies were biased against Asian Americans. He asked Seth P. Waxman, a former US solicitor general who represents Harvard, why Asian Americans scored lower than all other ethnic groups on the “personal rating” metric, which evaluates applicants’ personality traits. Of all the objections by Asian Americans, the "personal rating" score is what irks critics the most.

“They rank below whites, they rank way below Hispanics, and really way below African Americans,” Alito said. “What is the explanation for that?”

In his response, Waxman cited a lower court’s findings, saying that there is “no evidence of discrimination in admissions outcomes.”

Waxman said personal ratings are used by admissions officers “just as a matter of triage” and the score “fades into the background” later in the admissions process.

“It is not considered in any way once the subcommittees and committees meet,” Waxman said. “It is not the basis of admissions decisions.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in Grutter, pressed lawyers defending the universities’ admission policies to explain the educational benefits of diversity. “I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means. It seems to mean everything for everyone.

“I don’t have a clue” what diversity means, the African American Thomas told Ryan Park, the North Carolina Korean American solicitor general representing the university.

Thomas repeated a similar question to David Hinojosa, a Latino lawyer who represented a group of students and alumni from historically underrepresented groups who intervened in the UNC case to help defend the school’s admissions policy. What academic benefits, Thomas queried, stem from diversity?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that Grutter indicated that the use of racial classifications is so dangerous that it must have a logical endpoint, reports SCOTUSblog. “When does it end?” Barrett asked. “When is your sunset? When will you know?” It has been nearly 50 years since Bakke, she noted, and that timespan suggests that achieving diversity has been difficult. “What if it continues to be difficult in another 25 years?”

US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who argued on behalf of the Biden administration defending both schools’ policies, assured the court that “there is an endpoint in sight.” Society will change, she said, in a way that will allow universities to obtain a diverse student body without considering race.

But Chief Justice John Roberts argued, observing that Prelogar’s argument “was very different from what Justice O’Connor said” in Grutter. “She said race-conscious admissions programs must be limited in time. That was a requirement,” he insisted.

The court’s three liberal justices spent most of their time rebutting the basic premise behind the challengers’ cases—that race was the one determining factor in the admissions process under affirmative action. They attempted to explain to the conservative justices tha race was just one factor—an important one, but not the overriding factor.  

Jackson took Patrick Strawbridge, one of the lawyers for the challengers in the UNC case, to task. 

“When you give your race, you’re not getting any special points,” said Justice Jackson. “It's being treated just on par with other factors in the system. No one’s automatically getting in because race is being used.”

“You haven’t demonstrated or shown one situation in which all they look at is race and take from that stereotypes and other things," she told Strawbridge. "They are looking at the full person,” she said. She added that universities don’t make admission decisions “just because somebody checks a box.”

RULING'S RAMIFICATIONS

Ruling against the affirmative action admission policies of the two schools could have a wide-ranging impact beyond the campuses. If the High Court decides that the consideration of race is unconstitutional, the ruling could impact the affirmative action considerations for job applicants or awarding the thousands of local and federal government contracts ranging from construction, to providing food or military supplies.

Justice Elena Kagan said the benefits of diversity in higher education to society at large. “These are the pipelines to leadership in our society. It might be military leadership. It might be business leadership. It might be leadership in the law. It might be leadership in all kinds of different areas. Universities are the pipeline to that leadership,” she said.

“I thought that part of what it meant to be an American and to believe in American pluralism is that actually our institutions, you know, are reflective of who we are as a people in all our variety.”

“A university student body comprising a multiplicity of backgrounds, experiences and interests vitally benefits our nation,” said Seth P. Waxman, a former US solicitor general who represents Harvard. “Stereotypes are broken down, prejudice is reduced, and critical thinking and problem-solving skills are improved.”

“Because college is the training ground for America’s future leaders, the negative consequences would have reverberations throughout just about every important institution in America,” said Prelogar, noting that diversity is important in the military, business, and in innovation.

Despite the SFFA strategy of using disgruntled Asian American applicants as plaintiffs, about two-thirds of AANHPI have consistently favored affirmative action, according to several polls, including surveys by the Pew Research Center and APIA Data.

"The opposition does not speak for the vast majority of Asian Americans," says John C. Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC (AAAJ-AAJC), "and we reject these false narratives rooted in white supremacy to pit communities of color against one another when over two-thirds of Asian Americans support affirmative action because we understand it is our best opportunity to ensure there is equity and diversity in education.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow @DioknoEd on Twitter.

Supreme Court will hear cases challenging affirmative action

Asian Americans demonstrate in support of affirmative action.

Editor's Note: Updated Aug. 12, 2022, 3:20 p.m.

As expected, the U.S. Supreme Court said that it would hear two major cases concerning race-based admission process used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

The ultra-conservative Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it will hear oral arguments Oct. 31.

"Harvard does not discriminate; our practices are consistent with Supreme Court precedent; there is no persuasive, credible evidence warranting a different outcome," said Larry Bacow, Harvard's president.

"Considering race as one factor among many in admissions decisions produces a more diverse student body which strengthens the learning environment for all."

Since plaintiffs filed their complaint in 2014, lower courts have supported Harvard's admission process.

Supporters of affirmative action fear the court, bolstered by three of former President Donald Trump's appointees, could eliminate race-based admissions that has added more diversity on college campuses.

A majority of Asian Americans support affirmative action and have filed friends of the court briefs last week supporting Harvards and University of North Carolina admission processes.

Plaintiffs in the case, Students for Fair Admissions, say that the schools discriminate against Asian American several anonymous applicants, none of whom testified in the lower court cases. They claim the schools' admitted less qualified students.

Anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, who has made several attempts to end affirmative action, hopes that the six conservative justices dominating the court will rule against Harvard and UNC.

Blum, a former financial advisor and an unsuccessful candidate for Congress, has been undaunted in his attacks on affirmative action. After the court rejected Blum's challenge to the affirmative action policy at the University of Texas in 2016, he retooled his strategy, this time taking aim at Harvard and claiming that high-achieving Asian American students were being denied admission because of race.

He filed his complaint before he could find any Asian Americans to join the suit. Reportedly, there are now "dozens" of Asian Americans who remain unnamed and are part of Blum's suit.

Despite the anti-Asian bias claims of SFFA and Blum, 24% of Harvard's incoming class are of Asian descent.

Although affirmative action has survived 40 years of challenges, this Supreme Court has demonstrated in June that it not afraid to go against precedent as it ruled against women's right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. In earlier rulings, the justices weakened the Voting Rights Act and supported Donald Trump's immigration policy and ruled against any gun control legislation.

“For centuries, communities of color, including Asian Americans, have struggled against racial discrimination and faced systemic barriers to education, employment, and immigration, among other challenges,” said John C. Yang, President and Executive Director of Advancing Justice – AAJC. 

“Race, ethnicity, and our lived experiences are integral parts of our personal story and collective history. Holistic admissions ensures all students have the opportunity to share their whole story in addition to their academic achievements.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow @DioknoEd on Twitter. 

Another SCOTUS target? AANHPI rally around Harvard's admissions policy using affirmative action

 

Asian Americans join other students of color in their support for Harvard's admission policies.

Harvard University and its supporters, girding themselves for the possible dismantling of affirmative action, filed a host of friend of the court briefs Monday. 

With Asan Americans reportedly alleging that Harvard discriminated against them in its admissions process, it is noteworthy that some of the strongest arguments on behalf of affirmative action came from Asian American groups and individuals.

Faced with an ultra conservative Supreme Court that through its reversal on Roe v. Wade demonstrated it has no respect for legal precedent, the Ivy League school , business, educators and legal organizations filed friends of the court briefs supporting the need for diversity in higher education and in the real world. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the Harvard case in ints next session which begins Oct. 1.

The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, filed a brief on behalf of itself and 121 other Asian groups or individuals) that said, “The notion that race-conscious admissions policies discriminate against Asian Americans relies on and perpetuates harmful stereotypes against Asian Americans. The Asian American community is vast and varied, including first-generation college students and children whose parents’ professions secured their immigration; children of working-class refugees and multigenerational Americans; speakers of over 300 languages; aspiring entrepreneurs, artists, teachers and more.”

Margaret Fung, AALDEF executive director, said: “Significantly, not a single Asian American applicant offered testimony claiming to be a victim of discrimination. Harvard’s individualized admissions process, which takes race into account, actually helps to dispel the harmful ‘model minority’ myth by recognizing the vast ethnic, language, and socioeconomic diversity within the Asian American community.”

Despite some attempts by nonAsian media to paint a deep divide among AANHPI, a number of polls, including a survey by AAPIData showed that Asian Americans overwhelmingly support affirmative action, three-to-one.

Asian Americans Advancing Justice (Advancing Justice) filed two amicus briefs Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court in SFFA v. Harvard, affirming its longstanding support for race-conscious admissions in higher education.

“For centuries, communities of color, including Asian Americans, have struggled against racial discrimination and faced systemic barriers to education, employment, and immigration, among other challenges,” said John C. Yang, President and Executive Director of Advancing Justice – AAJC. “Race, ethnicity, and our lived experiences are integral parts of our personal story and collective history. Holistic admissions ensures all students have the opportunity to share their whole story in addition to their academic achievements.”

The amicus brief affirms that Harvard and UNC’s race-conscious admissions programs do not discriminate against AAPI students, but rather expand their access to higher education. The brief also highlights the educational benefits of racial diversity for AAPI communities and asserts that eliminating the consideration of race in admissions programs will harm AAPI and other students of color.

“Our communities know better than to give into extremist strategist Edward Blum’s years-long mission to deny Black, Latinx, Asian American, and other communities of color equal voting rights and educational opportunities,” said Aarti Kohli, Executive Director of Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus. “As a parent, my children have had more chances to grow and thrive because of affirmative action, diversity, and anti-discrimination programs in our education systems. As a civil rights lawyer, there’s no question these attacks on the constitutionality of race conscious programs are a thinly veiled strategy to limit educational opportunities for all students of color.”

Students for Fair Admissions headed by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum filed the complaint against Harvard in 2014. The lower courts have ruled in favor of Harvard.'s admission policies. 

Blum hopes the current  conservative majority in the Supreme Court will overturn the concept of affirmative action which has survived four earlier SCOTUS cases. The conservative majority of Justices demonstrated they have no problem overturning long-standing precedent when  in June they ruled, 6-3, against Roe v. Wade, which gave women the right to abortion.

Harvard also got a big boost when big tech companies led by Apple and Google filed a brief asked the Supreme Court not to do away with affirmative action, saying the companies seek racial diversity when hiring employees.

They were among roughly 70 companies in the technology, finance and health care industries staking a claim in one of the high court’s most watched cases during its next term.

"Diverse workforces improve … business performance — and thus strengthen the American and global economies. [The companies] seek employees who have been educated at universities with exposure to a broad array of life experiences and viewpoints, and who can bring diverse perspectives and experiences to the workplace,” the 47-page brief read.

Some of the other major companies that signed onto the brief include Airbnb, American Airlines, American Express, Dell Technologies, Johnson & Johnson, Mattel, PayPal, Meta Platforms, Starbucks, The Hershey Company, The Kraft Heinz Company, Uber, United Airlines and Walgreens Boots Alliance.

Harvard's defenders included a host of other universities who point to the 1978 case of Regents of University of California v Bakke, where the high court ruled that racial quotas were unlawful, but consideration of race as one part of an admissions factor is constitutional.

The president of the University of California system and chancellors of UC’s 10 campuses said their system was an example of what the court should avoid.

“For the past 25 years, UC has served as just such a laborator(y) for experimentation,” the brief said. “After Proposition 209 (which banned affirmative action) barred consideration of race in admissions decisions at public universities in California, freshmen enrollees from underrepresented minority groups dropped precipitously at UC, and dropped by 50% or more at UC’s most selective campuses. Since then, UC has implemented numerous and wide-ranging race-neutral measures designed to increase diversity of all sorts, including racial diversity … Those programs have enabled UC to make significant gains in its system-wide diversity. 

"Yet despite its extensive efforts, UC struggles to enroll a student body that is sufficiently racially diverse to attain the educational benefits of diversity. The short-fall is especially apparent at UC’s most selective campuses, where African American, Native American, and Latinx students are underrepresented and widely report struggling with feelings of racial isolation.”

Hoping to sway the six Catholic Supreme Court Justices, Georgetown University filed a brief as part of a joint effort with 56 Catholic institutions, including the University of Notre Dame, the College of the Holy Cross, DePaul University and Villanova University. Their brief affirms that the right to consider racial diversity in a holistic admissions process to build a diverse student body and learning environment is essential to their academic and religious missions. Achieving racial diversity in admissions, the brief asserts, is “inextricably intertwined” with Catholic universities and colleges’ religious foundations.

The brief also argues that this right is rooted in the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise Clause, particularly for Catholic higher education institutions, whose ability to have discretion in how they choose students is critical to their religious missions. 

Harvard's own student and alumni amici attested to how a diverse campus benefits all students, including addressing racial isolation and increasing cross-racial understanding and cultural competency that better prepared them for their professional careers. 

Asian American amici, some who testified in court, also affirmed benefiting from race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard, which provided them the opportunity to share their whole story, including their race and ethnicity, background, and diverse experiences. Asian American students which the Students for Fair Admissions purport to represent offered no in-person testimony.

“Absolute neutrality has never been a universal constitutional principle,” Harvard argued in its own behalf, saying that the framers of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment saw race-conscious measures as necessary to ensure Black people’s “equal participation in society” following the Civil War.

Harvard’s website cites Asian American student acceptance at 25.9% and African American students at 15.9% out of 2,320 total. Lower courts have ruled in favor of Harvard and UNC, but the university remains steadfast in its mission to diversify its student body.

“Harvard has repeatedly studied and continues to evaluate the importance of student-body diversity to its educational objectives and whether a race-conscious admissions process remains necessary to achieve them,” Harvard's brief said. “But as the district court observed, ‘we are not there yet.’”

“No alternative is presently workable,” states Harvard. “Until that changes, Harvard must be allowed to consider race as one of many characteristics in admissions to achieve the compelling benefits of student-body diversity.”

The Advancing Justice brief affirms that Harvard and UNC’s race-conscious admissions programs do not discriminate against AAPI students, but rather expand their access to higher education. The brief also highlights the educational benefits of racial diversity for AAPI communities and asserts that eliminating the consideration of race in admissions programs will harm AAPI and other students of color. 

“For too long, the model minority myth has propagated a false premise that AAPIs don’t benefit from race conscious admissions practices,” said Connie Chung Jose, CEO, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California (AJSOCAL). “The reality is that our communities also face discrimination and barriers to opportunities that race conscious admissions can address. And for AAPI students and other students of color, having a racially diverse student body is not only important to their educational experience, but often necessary to fully articulate the hurdles, achievements, and personal development experiences intrinsic to college admissions evaluations.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow @DioknoEd on Twitter.