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.

Appeals court: Harvard's admission policy does not discriminate against Asian Americans

This photo of Harvard was taken before the coronavirus pandemic.

Harvard University did not discriminate against Asian American applicants in its admission process an appeals court ruled Thursday (Nov. 12), setting up a likely showdown at the Republican-packed U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision by the First Circuit Appeals Court  agreed with a district court ruling made that Harvard's use of race in admissions was legal. In September, U.S. District Judge Allison Burrough rejected allegations by some Asian American students who claimed the school systematically discriminated against them with its admissions policy, which considers factors beyond test scores to decide who gets accepted at the prestigious school

"The issue before us is whether Harvard's limited use of race in its admissions process in order to achieve diversity in the period in question is consistent with the requirements of Supreme Court precedent," Appeals Court Judge Sandra Lynch in the ruling. "There was no error."

"Today's decision once again finds that Harvard's admissions policies are consistent with Supreme Court precedent, and lawfully and appropriately pursue Harvard's efforts to create a diverse campus that promotes learning and encourages mutual respect and understanding in our community," said Harvard spokeswoman Rachael Dane . "As we have said time and time again, now is not the time to turn back the clock on diversity and opportunity."

The lawsuit against Harvard was raised by Students for Fair Admission. The group said it will probably appeal to SCOTUS. It will be the first affirmative action case for the new conservative-dominated court and newly installed activist Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

"While we are disappointed with the opinion of the First Circuit Court of Appeals, our hopeis not lost," Edward Blum, the anti-affirmative action advocate who leads SFFA said. "This lawsuit is now on track to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court where we will ask the justices to end these unfair and unconstitutional race-based admissions policies at Harvard and all colleges and universities."

SFFA's cause was hurt in the lower courts because none of the Asian Amerian applicants supposedly harmed by Harvard's admission policy did not want to testify in court. Harvard, in contrast, produced students of various ethnicities who spoke about the benefits of having a diverse student body.

More than 40,000 students applied to Harvard's undergraduate college this fall, and fewer than 5% were offered admission. Of those admitted, Harvard said 24.5% identified as Asian American, 14.8% as African American or Black, 12.7% as Latinx and 1.8% as Native American.

EDITOR'S NOTE: A word of caution, this is news sprinkled with opinion. Readers are encouraged to seek multiple news sources to formulate their own positions.

Trump's Department of Justice files suit vs. Yale over admissions

The Justice Department filed suit against Yale University for race and national origin discrimination and once again, Asian Americans are being used as a front to dismantle affirmative action.

The lawsuit filed Thursday (Oct. 7) alleges that Yale discriminated against applicants to Yale College on the grounds of race and national origin, and that Yale’s discrimination imposes undue and unlawful penalties on racially-disfavored applicants, including in particular most Asian and White applicants.

The lawsuit follows a two-year DOJ investigation prompted by a 2016 complaint against Yale from the Asian American Coalition for Education and 132 other organizations, but the real driver behind the complaint is the Students for Fair Admissions headed by affirmative action foe Edward Blum.

“Illegal race discrimination by colleges and universities must end,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division. “This nation’s highest ideals include the notion that we are all equal under the law. For centuries, people from all over the world have learned of this ideal, left their ancestral homes, and come to the United States hoping that this country would live up to its ideals and that they and their families could enjoy equal opportunity and pursue the American dream.

"All persons who apply for admission to colleges and universities should expect and know that they will be judged by their character, talents, and achievements and not the color of their skin. To do otherwise is to permit our institutions to foster stereotypes, bitterness, and division.”   

In an email to the Yale community Thursday evening, University President Peter Salovey reiterated that Yale has communicated with the DOJ over the past few weeks, adding that the University has provided them with statistics showing that the allegations are false.

“I want to be clear: Yale does not discriminate against applicants of any race or ethnicity,” Salovey wrote. “Our admissions practices are completely fair and lawful. Yale’s admissions policies will not change as a result of the filing of this baseless lawsuit. We look forward to defending these policies in court.”

The Justice Department found Yale discriminates based on race and national origin in its undergraduate admissions process, and that race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year. For the great majority of applicants, Asian Americans and Whites have only one-eighth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African American applicants with comparable academic credentials. Yale rejects scores of Asian American and White applicants each year based on their race, whom it otherwise would admit.

The Yale case is similar to the suit filed against Harvard and it's admission policies. In that case, Asian American applicants were again used as supposed victims of an alleged biased admission policies. A lower court's decision in Harvard's favor is being appealed. The U.S. 1st District Court of Appeals heard arguments on Sept. 16 in which the three-panel judge aggressively questioned the plaintiff's lawyers. Both sides of the case believe that the Harvard suit will wind up in front of the conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

As in the Harvard case, the Asian students cited in the complaint are from families of new immigrants predominantly from China unfamiliar with the history of affirmative action and the generations of racism that prompted it.

“Yale believes that having a student body and a faculty from around the globe and around the country — including individuals with a wide range of ethnic and racial backgrounds, socioeconomic and family upbringings, gender orientations, talents and skills — enriches Yale’s community in immeasurable ways and prepares our students to lead and succeed in an increasingly diverse global workforce,” said Dean of Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid, Jeremiah Quinlan.

Yale's first-year students for this fall is 45% White, 29% Asian, 14% Hispanic or Latino, 13% Black or African American, 2% American Indian or Alaska Native.

Clearly, Asian American students are not being discriminated against. What is really at danger are the slots taken by White students admitted through legacy status, ie. those who have a special skill or admitted because of a relationship with a wealthy donor alumni or celebrity. 

Apparently the Trump and Bill Barr-led Justice Department that can't be bothered with biased police, hasn't acted against blatant voter suppression or speak and act against white supremacists, has prioritized trying to find a case against affirmative action an activist Supreme Court could rule against without revealing the case's racist intentions.

EDITOR'S NOTE: A word of caution, this is news sprinkled with opinion. Readers are encouraged to seek multiple news sources to formulate their own positions. 

Appeal court judges pound DOJ attorneys in arguing against Harvard's affirmative action case

A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals challenged the Department of Justice attorneys who allege that Harvard's admission process discriminates against Asian Americans.

When a lawyer for the Students for Fair Admissions accused the school imposing a "racial penalty" on Asian Americans, one of the panelists interrupted and questioned the basis of the claim.

“Where is the evidence of racial profiling here?” challenged Judge Juan Torruella last Wednesday (Sept. 16) when the appeal hearings of SFFA v. Harvard began in the Boston court.

“Attacks on race-conscious admissions policies are dangerous and harm equal opportunity for all," said a statement from Asian Americans Advancing Justice. The case against Harvard used Asian Americans as a wedge against other students of color, when Asian American students benefit from affirmative action and race-conscious admissions policies.

"We still need affirmative action," continued the statement. "The reality is that race continues to unfairly limit educational opportunities for all students of color. Cold numerical indicators like grade point averages and standardized test scores capture and magnify those inequalities and cannot be fairly evaluated without considering the real-life impact of race and racism. Nor are standardized test scores accurate predictors of academic success. Our full life experience, including race, is also part of what we bring to the table."

SFFA, an anti-affirmative action group, is using Asian Americans as a front to dismantle Harvard's admissions process that includes race as one of the factors in evaluating student applications. Although none of the Asian American students allegedly rejected by Harvard failed to appear in court, SFFA claims racial stereotypes work subjectively against Asian applicants to Harvard.

SFFA claims that Black and Hispanic student applicants  with lower test scores were taking the place of bettere qualified Asian American students.

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund Senior Deputy Director Jin Hee Lee, representing 26 Harvard-affiliated organizations,  made clear the difference between race-conscious admissions and racial stereotyping.

“Every one of the organizations that I represent condemns race discrimination against any person,” Lee said. “But this case does not seek to eliminate bias against Asian Americans, as demonstrated by the sole remedy that SFFA gives, which is the complete elimination of race conscious admissions and nothing more.”

In one of the sharpest exchanges Judge Sandra Lynch strongly questioned lawyers challenging Harvard's affirmative action policies on Wednesday, implicitly disputing their claims of bias against Asian American students and assertions of Supreme Court precedent.

"You started out by saying that the Harvard system is intentionally discriminatory because it uses subjective criteria," Lynch told William Consovoy, representing SFFA. "But in the Bakke case, which of course binds us, they also used subjective criteria and talked glowingly of Harvard's plan at the time."

Lynch was referring to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the 1978 case in which the Supreme Court first allowed colleges to use race as a "plus" factor in admissions for campus diversity.

"We're saying it is more susceptible to bias infiltrating the system," clarified Consovoy, "because it uses subjective criteria. ... I think that's just common sense."

Almost a year ago, U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that Harvard’s admission policies don’t discriminate on the basis of race, don’t engage in racial balancing or use quotas, and don’t place undue emphasis on race in considering applicants’ admissions files, according to CNN. In his ruling, the judge suggested that Harvard couldn’t offer students the benefits of a diverse campus if it stopped considering race in admissions.

In an emailed statement immediately following the conclusion of oral arguments, SFFA President Edward Blum said his organization was ready to challenge the District Court’s ruling to the end.

“It is our hope that this court will carefully examine the massive amount of irrefutable evidence we presented at trial that proved Harvard’s systematic discrimination against Asian-Americans and reverse the lower court’s ruling,” Blum said. “If necessary, Students for Fair Admissions is prepared to take this case to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: A word of caution, this is news sprinkled with opinion. Readers are encouraged to seek multiple news sources to formulate their own positions. 

University of California dropping SAT. and ACT tests for admission

The bane of minority students applying to college will be phased out at the 10-campus University of California system.

The UC Regents' Thursday unanimous vote to do away with the SAT and ACT as requirements to admission was greeted with praise at Little Manila Rising, one of the agencies that had advocated the elimination of what it called culturally biased tests.

"The use of SAT and ACT testing in college admissions is like educational redlining," the Stockton-based agency tweeted in response. "Our education system should provide a vehicle for growth and opportunity to California's young people -- non re-enforce (sic) the harm caused by systemic oppression."

“We’ve seen firsthand how SAT and ACT scores act as a discriminatory barrier to college access for students from historically disenfranchised communities through our college prep programs,” said Dillon Delvo, executive director of Little Manila Rising, one of the organizational plaintiffs in the case. “Eliminating these discriminatory practices will help Filipino/a students and students from other marginalized communities access higher education and achieve personal success.”

Studies, including UC's own study, have shown that among AAPI communities, Filipinos and Hmong do not fare well in the standardized tests. The research also shows that test scores are not a good indicator of how successful the student will be in college.

Before the Thursday vote, the UC system had already made the tests optional instead of mandatory. The Regents voted to continue the optional status for another year. The SAT and ACT will be eliminated altogether by 2025.

"Filipinos have the lowest UC admission rates out of all major Asian groups - 54% of applicants, compared to 70% Chinese, 73% Taiwanese, 69% Korean, 67% Vietnamese, 66% Indian, and 64% Japanese. Let’s unpack that! two-thirds to three-quarters of other groups are admitted but only one-half of Filipinos are," said Kevin Nadal, PhD., a Filipino American professor at City University of New York.

However, the news was not celebrated by all Asian Americans. The Asian Americans Coalition for Education has argued against dropping the tests. In earlier statements, the group stated that  "replacing standardized testing with more subjective school-level factors and less rigorous methods such as the Smarter Balance Assessment will undermine American meritocracy, hinder our nation’s technological progress, and jeopardize our national security."

AACE, co-founded by Edward Burns, noted for his anti-affirmative action crusades in Texas in more recently, against Harvard University. In the Harvard case, AACE filed a friend of the court brief arguing against the school's admission policies which they claim discriminates against Asian applicants in favor of less-qualified students.

Prior to 2025, the university will look into creating their own test for college applicants. The system which has over 300,000 students, includes the flagship campus, UC Berkeley, consistently rated the top public university in the country. At the highly competitive campus of UC Berkeley, only 12% of the Filipino applicants were admitted. Only Hmong applicants with a 10% admittance rate had a lower number of students admitted.

Harvard's admissions' ruling appealed

Asian American students demonstrated in favor of Harvard's admission process. 

It was no surprise that just days after a federal judge ruled that Harvard's admissions process did not discriminate against Asian American applicants, his ruling was appealed.
US District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs on Oct. 1 ruled that while Harvard could improve its admissions process with more training and monitoring, it is “very fine,’’ legally sound, and uses race only in a narrow way.

Students for Fair Admissions is appealing to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, according to a court filing.

Edward Blum, president of the group, said in statement, “Students for Fair Admissions looks forward to making our appeal to the US First Circuit Court of Appeals and, if necessary, to the US Supreme Court.’’

William F. Lee ’72 — the lead trial lawyer for Harvard and the senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation, the University’s highest governing body — said that Harvard will “vigorously” defend Burrough’s decision.

“The Court’s ruling that Harvard does not discriminate on the basis of race in its admissions process, and that Harvard’s pursuit of the diverse student body central to its educational mission is lawful, was very gratifying and provides a clear path forward to resolve this important case,” Lee said in a statement. “Harvard will vigorously defend the Court’s decision in this case.”

“Throughout this trial and after a careful review of all exhibits and written submissions, there is no evidence of any racial animus whatsoever or intentional discrimination on the part of Harvard beyond its use of a race conscious admissions policy, nor is there any evidence that any particular admissions decision was negatively affected by Asian American identity,’’ wrote Burroughs in her 130-page ruling.

The ruling came nearly a year after the trial that pitted Harvard against Students for Fair Admissions. Burroughs said the plaintiff, “did not present a single admissions file that reflected any discriminatory animus, or even an application of an Asian American who it contended should have or would have been admitted absent an unfairly deflated personal rating.’’

"Blum’s cynical attempt to use members of the Asian American community seeks to pit people of color against one another," wrote the ACLU, which filed a friend of the court brief in the case.

If Blum gets his wish, statistical projections show that white applicants will be the primary beneficiaries. Not talking about race doesn’t erase discrimination; it reinforces the privileges of white applicants by ignoring the ways in which deep-seeded structural racial inequality impacts individualsm, contends the ACLU.It is Blum's intention to appeal the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where he hopes its conservative majority will rule any admissions process that uses race as one of its factors.

"Affirmative action" was signed into law by President John F. Kennedy through executive order. Universities use race as a factor in the admissions process because for centuries, race was used against certain groups of people to deny them equal opportunity to study and graduate from elite institutions such as Harvard.

In an earlier case filed by Blum's group, Fisher v. University of Texas, the Supreme Court allowed race to be used as a factor in admissions at the University of Texas, as long as it is not the only factor used in deciding who gets into that school.

If the reconstituted Supreme Court, heavily weighted by extreme conservatives because of appointments made by Donald Trump, rules against Harvard, it could dismantle the  admissions processes  of schools throughout the country and hiring practices by government  agencies and private businesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

Judge rules Harvard admissions doesn't discriminate against Asian Americans

Harvard students rallied in favor of the university's admission policies before the trial begain in 2018.

Harvard's affirmative action policy "passes constitutional muster" and doesn't discriminate against Asian Americans ruled a federal judge Tuesday (Oct. 1).

In U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts federal Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued her decision, saying "the Court finds no persuasive documentary evidence of any racial animus or conscious prejudice against Asian Americans." In the decision, Burroughs said that while Harvard's admissions program is "not perfect," "ensuring diversity at Harvard relies, in part, on race conscious admissions."

“Ultimately, the Court finds that Harvard has met its burden of showing that its admissions process complies with the principles articulated by the Supreme Court in Fisher II,” she wrote, referring to an earlier affirmative action challenge, Fisher v. University of Texas, which was instigated by anti-affirmative action advocate Edward Blum.

Blum was also president of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), which reportedly represents several Asian American students in the case against Harvard. Blum said he was disappointed in Burrough's ruling.

"SFFA will appeal this decision to the 1st Court of Appeals and, if necessary, to the U.S Supreme Court," he said.

Blum's statement demonstrates that while the Boston court trial is over, the debate over affirmative action is far from over. With the conservative majority currently in the Supreme Court, civil rights advocates fear that affirmative action could still be overturned.

Tuesday's "decision is a critical victory for Asian American students, who benefit from affirmative action and support race-conscious admissions policies,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus. “While we must do more to ensure that Asian American students do not face unequal opportunities through harassment, stereotyping and language barriers, the use of race-conscious admissions policies — which safeguard against discrimination — is an important step.”

Rep. Judy Chu, D-CA, said, “It is shameful that the educational playing field remains unequal for so many students of color, including many within the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community who continue to face significant barriers to attaining a college degree. 

"For instance, only 14% of Laotians, 16% of Cambodians, and 19% of Pacific Islanders have a bachelor’s degree. These educational disparities show us why it is important to expand opportunities to higher education for all students, including AAPIs, who have benefited from race-conscious admissions policies that help to level the playing field," she continued.

Harvard University President Lawrence S. Bacow wrote in a statement Tuesday that the College’s consideration of race in its admissions process “helps us achieve our goal of creating a diverse student body that enriches the education of every student.”

“Everyone admitted to Harvard College has something unique to offer our community, and today we reaffirm the importance of diversity—and everything it represents to the world,” he wrote.

“I applaud the Harvard students who made their voices heard in this case and during the trial. They made vividly clear the benefits of student body diversity,” he wrote. “I also saw firsthand the intense commitment of many, including all those who testified, and who defended and supported the University, with tremendous acumen and skill, and I am deeply grateful for their excellent work.”

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

None of the Asian American students SFFA purportedly represents didn't want to testify during the trial. The testimony of the students in favor of affirmative action played a major factor in Burrough's decision. She wrote that their testimonies showed how race played a critical role in their experiences before and during their time at Harvard.

"The students who are admitted to Harvard and choose to attend will live and learn surrounded by all sorts of people, with all sorts of experiences, beliefs and talents" she wrote. "They will have the opportunity to know and understand one another beyond race, as whole individuals with unique histories and experiences. It is this, at Harvard and elsewhere that will move us, one day, to the point where we see that race is a fact, but not the defining fact and not the fact that tells us what is important, but we are not there yet."

The basis for Blum's lawsuit was that Harvard discriminated against Asian applicants who had higher test scores than some of the students admitted through Harvard's admission policies which considers race as one factor in looking at a student holistically.

The trial and debate also exposed an apparent schism in the Asian American community that Blum took advantage of. Generally, it pitted long-time AAPI civil rights organizations against newer immigrants -- primarily from China -- who pushed for a pure meritocratic evaluation of test scores, GPA and extracurricular activities without out taking into account other socio-economic factors -- including race -- in an applicant's background.

With the focus on Harvard's admissions, researchers also learned that the university had a high proportion of so-called "legacy" students, who are children of large donors, alumni, children of alumni or who have special skills, such as athletics. Roughly three-quarters of white legacy students would have been rejected if they had been treated the same as non-white legacy students. 

“As an Asian American, affirmative action helped give me a fair shot in Harvard’s application process,” said student Sally Chen, who testified in support of Harvard in the trial last fall. “The court made the right decision for Asian Americans, for diversity in education, and for all of the students like me who believe race is an important part of our identity and something we deserve to be able to share. The fight for racial equity is far from over. I will continue to fight for race-conscious policies on behalf of other Asian American students at Harvard and across other college campuses.”

_____________________________________________________________________

Anti-affirmative action battle moves to U. of North Carolina

Buoyed by their anti-affirmative action arguments on behalf of Asian American applicants to Harvard, Students for Fair Admissions has opened another front at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
SFFA, led by long-time affirmative action opponent Edward Blum, seeks to end race-conscious admissions at both universities. In their briefing, SFFA suggest that in addition to whites, Asian Americans are also supposedly disadvantaged by UNC's race-conscious admissions policy.

Blum said the group's filing contain calculations from an expert witness saying an Asian American male applicant from North Carolina with a 25% chance of getting into the school would have his probability increase to about 67% if he were Latino. It would rise to more than 90% if he were African American.

Asian Americans Advancing Justice, an affiliation of five civil rights organizations, alongside over 60 Asian American groups and 25 professors, with Fox Rothschild LLP filed an amicus brief today in support of race-conscious holistic admissions at UNC. Participants in this brief whole-heartedly attest that race-conscious admissions policies result in more equitable and integrated universities and enhance the educational experiences of all students.

UNC-Chapel Hill, which wants U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs to hold a hearing on its dismissal motion, says there are no racial or ethnic quotas in the admissions process, and race is one of many factors considered.

"No reasonable trier of fact could conclude on this record that the university uses quotas, engages in racial set asides or point allocations, or intentionally discriminates against applicants based on race," the school's brief said.

"In its academic judgment, the university has determined that pursuing the educational benefits of diversity is integral to fulfilling its mission to prepare the next generation of leaders," the school's brief continued..

More than 4,300 first-year students entered UNC-Chapel Hill last fall, with over 43,000 first-year applications filed.

"A 'color-blind' admissions policy is not race-neutral; it merely reinforces racial segregation and widens existing disparities in educational opportunities for people of color, including many Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs)," said Nicole Gon Ochi, supervising attorney at Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles. "We refuse to be used as a weapon to dismantle programs that increase opportunities for students of color."

The consideration of race in university admissions, one of many factors in the admissions process, has been critical for many schools to fully understand an applicant's background and experiences beyond test scores.

"The data shows that these policies help all students of color, including Asian Americans," said Dr. OiYan Poon, assistant professor of Higher Education and director of the Race & Intersectional Studies for Educational Equity (RISE Center) at Colorado State University. "Removing the consideration of race in admissions would hurt the most marginalized of AAPI students and be detrimental to the educational climate and environment, from which all students benefit."

Race-conscious admission policies have been credited with offsetting the inherent racial biases of other admission factors, such as SAT/ACT scores. They are also a factor in creating more diverse student bodies on university campuses that more closely reflect regional or national demographics. Studies show that colleges and universities that reach the highest levels of diversity have fewer incidents of racial hostility. Students report having a more positive learning experience in schools with race-conscious admission processes.

Mainstream media coverage of the Harvard case may have given the impression that the majority of the AAPI community was against affirmative action. In actuality, there is overwhelming support for affirmative action.

"Removing the consideration of race at UNC would be a disservice to all communities of color, including the diverse AAPI subgroups in North Carolina," said Chavi Khanna Koneru, executive director of North Carolina Asian Americans Together. "Our state is home to significant ethnic minority communities from Southeast Asia who experience varying economic and educational barriers. Saying that Asian Americans are not underrepresented minorities at UNC only obscures the needs of underrepresented Asian Americans."

"The growing Southeast Asian community in our state is not a monolith; each student deserves the holistic review long prized by our state's flagship university," said Matthew Nis Leerberg, North Carolina-based partner at national law firm Fox Rothschild LLP. 

The case against Harvard's admission policies has already gone to court and a ruling is expected any day. Like the Harvard case, UNC's case is expected to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Asian Americans Advancing Justice stands firmly in support of UNC, race-conscious admission policies, and all students of color. We will continue to fight alongside other communities of color for greater equity and justice in this country.

_____________________________________________

Sunday Read: What's up, 2019? Affirmative action divides AAPI community

PERHAPS NO OTHER ISSUE threatens to divide the Asian Americans than affirmative action.

Even though the majority of Asian Americans support the program that helps disadvantaged students vs. privileged students, a vocal and organized minority have been successful in grabbing the headlines in the debate over Harvard's admission policies, which has been charged with being biased against Asian Americans.

The plaintiff's lawyers in the Harvard case opened his arguments by saying that the trail was not about affirmative action. But egging on the aggrieved Asian American students and providing legal support is Students for Fair Admissions, a group headed by Edward Blum who has spent decades fighting affirmative action, which allows schools to take race under consideration in order to create a diverse student body.

EDITOR'S NOTE: What's Up, 2019: is part of series of posts about issues facing the AAPI community in the coming year. 

• Trump wants to deport public benefit recipients
• Immigration reform strikes at heart of Asian America
• Asian Americans might balk at filling out 2020 Census 

The trial began in November and lasted 10 days. The judge is expected to render a decision this month. No matter what U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burrough rules, both sides of the argument, Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions, say they will appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Students for Fair Admission says Harvard intentionally keeps the admission rate of Asian Americans below 20 percent despite statistically having the highest test scores among all ethnic groups. Blum stated that his goal is to eliminate total consideration as race as a factor for admission to Harvard. 

Blum's critics believe a ruling for the plaintiffs would eliminate the use of any affirmative action and work against qualified, but underrepresented, minorities.

The debate revealed a schism in the Asian American community, roughly delineated by recent immigrants from China and Asian Americans who have been in this country longer than a generation.

New immigrants, without the knowledge of this country's civil rights battles and how minorities had to fight for affirmative action, believe that admissions should be based solely on grades and SAT scores. They claim that less qualified students - mostly blacks and Latinos - were taking slots that they believe should be going to Asian Americans with higher test scores and better grades.

Affirmative action supporters, made up of many of the older Asian American civil rights organizations who fought for affirmative action and other equal opportunity programs,  argue that not all Asian Americans fit into the model minority myth that the Harvard plaintiffs seem to accept.


For example, although about half of Asian Americans hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, only 27 percent of Vietnamese Americans and 17 percent of Hmong and Cambodian Americans hold at least a bachelor’s degree, according to a 2014 report from the Center for American Progress and AAPI Data.

A similar argument is being made in New York City where Asian American students form the majority of the student body in the city's college-prep high schools. Mayor Bill de Blasio and schools Chancellor Richard Carranza made changes to an admissions policy that some members of the Asian American community claim discriminates against Asian American students.

Instead of relying on scores on the Specialized High School Admissions Test, or SHSAT, the change would reserve spots for the top students in every middle school in low-income neighborhoods. That would eliminate 11 schools with a majority Asian American student body but more than double the number of black and Latino students.

Those admission changes are scheduled to begin in 2019 and would nearly double offers to black and Latino students from approximately 9 percent to approximately 16 percent, according to the mayor's office.

A lawsuit filed by Pacific Legal Foundation in federal court alleges that the proposed changes for admission prevents Asian American students from vying for those seats and violate their equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment. 

Plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to keep the the city schools from implementing the new admission procedures.

______________________________________________________________________________

Sunday Read: Trial hears closing arguments in case challenging Harvard admission criteria

ASAM NEWS

DESPITE CHARGES of discrimination against Asian Americans, attorneys for Harvard maintain the real goal of the lawsuit against it is to eliminate all consideration of race in admissions, reports CNN.

Harvard attorneys made that statement in closing arguments Friday (Nov. 2) in the three-week long trial asserting that Harvard intentionally penalizes Asian Americans in their “personal rating,” despite high academic scores.

Both sides gave their closing argument in the case Friday that will ultimately be decided by U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs.

Students for Fair Admission, led by Edward Blum, says Harvard intentionally keeps the admission rate of Asian Americans below 20 percent despite statistically having the highest test scores among all ethnic groups. Blum stated that his goal is to eliminate total consideration as race as a factor for admission to Harvard. 

Blum's critics believe a ruling for the plaintiffs would eliminate the use of any affirmative action and work against qualified, but underrepresented, minorities.

The class of 2022, the latest to be admitted to Harvard is made up of 23 percent Asian Americans, 15 percent African Americans and 12 percent Latinos.

Admittance to Harvard is highlty competitive. At stake are 1600 spots for admissions from 40,000 applicants.

In the class of 2019, 8,000 applicants had perfect GPAs and 5,000 had perfect math and verbal SAT scores. You don’t have to be a math whiz to understand all of those students could not be admitted, making the ultimate choices highly debatable and subjective.

“That Asian Americans get worse personal ratings year after year is pretty strong evidence that racial bias has crept into the system,” attorney John Hughes said in closing arguments for the plaintiffs, reported MSN.

Harvard countered that there is “almost no correlation” between “personal rating” and academics while acknowledging that Asian Americans score lower personal ratings, on average.

Harvard's lead attorney William Lee, an Asian American representing his alma mater, pointed out that Students for Fair Admissions has previously unsuccessfully challenged affirmative action using white applicants and only lately has recruited Asian American students. 

He also praised the Harvard students and alumnae, the majority of whom were Asian Americans, who spoke in favor of the race criteria and pointed out that no Asian Americans testified on behalf of SFFA.

"We've heard from the students themselves. We've heard from the students who are living diversity every day," Lee said in his concluding remarks. "Although much progress has been made, there is much to be done."
A decision from Judge Burroughs is not expected for months. The judge has indicated she will hold a post-trial briefing with all parties to discuss any remaining issues.

Win or lose, both SFFA and Harvard said they would appeal if the decision goes against them. It is expected that the case will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Views From the Edge contributed to this report.
________________________________________________________________________________

Harvard on Trial: Data shows drop in Asian & Asian American admissions

At a recent Harvard graduation ceremony.

ASIANS AND ASIAN AMERICANS was the only ethnic group whose acceptance rate into Harvard University dropped in 2017.

Asians had the lowest admission average rate among ethnic groups. 8.1%, compared to whites, 11.1%, African Americans. 13.2% and Hispanic Americans, 10.6%

Ironically, the data wasn't presented by the plaintiff's lawyers but by Harvard's attorney, William F. Lee, as he questioning long-time Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons.

Over a 18 year period, from 2000 to 2017, the acceptance rate for Asians dropped to 5.6% in 2017. 6.1% for Hispanic Americans, 6.8% for African Americans and 7% for European Americans.

The data didn't differentiate between Asian Americans and students who come from Asian countries.

Getting into Harvard, one of the top schools in world, is extremely competitive. The reason for the drop among groups is because applications have increased for the limited number of slots that has basically remained the same. For the class of 2018, the overall acceptance rate dropped to 4.6%.

The university offered admission to a total of 1,962 of its 42,749 applicants this year, the school announced Wednesday. According to the Harvard Crimson, the 4.6 percent acceptance rate is the lowest in Harvard’s centuries-old history, and it’s the fourth straight year that the percentage has decreased.

Harvard's Class of 2022

Asian American plaintiffs in the trial are represented by Students for Fair Admission, a creation of conservative activist Edward Blum. They will probably not testify in the trial and wish that they remain anonymous out of fear of harassment.

Blum is the man behind this litigation intent on pitting Asian Americans against other communities of color in an effort, as a final goal, to dismantle affirmative action, diversity programs and civil rights protections that benefit all people of color.

The trial began Monday and is expected to last three weeks in the Boston court.

Fitzwilliams took up the most time in the witness stand. Later, long-time Harvard admissions officer Christopher J. Looby took the stand followed by Harvard Director of Research for Admissions and Financial Aid Erica J. Bever. 

No matter what decision Judge Judge Allison D. Burroughs hands down, the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

______________________________________________________________________________

Trial asks, Is Harvard admission policies biased against Asian Americans?

FACEBOOK

As the trail on Harvard's admission policies begins, duel rallies were held in Boston.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY'S admission policies went under the microscope Monday in a trial in Boston that could determine the fate of affirmative action.

The plaintiffs -- Students for Fair Admissions -- claims that the university turned away highly qualified Asian American applicants in order to admit less qualified applicants.

Sally Chen ’19, co-director of the Task Force on Asian and Pacific American Studies and one of four undergraduates slated to testify, told the Harvard Crimson that it’s important to raise awareness about what’s at stake in the case.

“It’s important that we help people understand that the lawsuit isn’t about bias against Asian American students,” she said. “It’s about eliminating an important way colleges and universities across the country can help open the door to all students of color, including Asian Americans.”

Chen added that she thinks Harvard’s race-conscious policies helped her gain entry to the College because they allowed admissions officers to consider the role of race on her life experiences and achievements.

Students for Fair Admissions is a creation of Edward Blum, a white legal strategist who for years has fought against the use of race at other colleges. The most recent legal battle, Fisher v. University of Texas, went to the Supreme Court in 2016 upholding UT's admission policies.

Students for Fair Admissions is a creation of Edward Blum, a white legal strategist who for years has fought against the use of race at other colleges. The most recent legal battle, Fisher v. University of Texas, went to the Supreme Court in 2016 upholding UT's admission policies.

In the Harvard case, unless the plaintiff's lawyers change their strategy, none of the Asian American plaintiffs are expected to testify in the trial. They have submitted their testimony as affidavit and will remain anonymous.

Harvard denies the allegations saying race is just one of the factors used in evaluating applicants. Of the 40,000 applications this year, only about 2,000 were admitted, 23% of whom are of Asian descent.

“Harvard has engaged in, and continues to engage in, intentional discrimination against Asian Americans,” said Adam Mortara, lawyer for Students for Fair Admission, which filed the complaint.

"Diversity and its benefits are not on trial here. Students for Fair Admissions supports diversity on campus," he said.

Mortara focused on an in-house study that showed the university knew of the alleged bias in 2013 but didn't do anything to correct their admission procedures and policies.

Asian Americans, the document showed, often were required to have higher standardized test scores on average than peers from other racial groups to qualify for a letter encouraging promising students to think about Harvard.

Plaintiffs believe that Harvard used a "personal rating" score that's used to subjectively measure character traits such as "courage" and "likeability" which Asian Americans received low scores, contend plaintiffs' lawyers.

Harvard’s lead attorney, William F. Lee, denied that the university discriminates against Asian Americans. Harvard, he said, is "open to students of all backgrounds and means.”

Lee described Harvard's intricate review process in which race is one of many factors. “Harvard never considers an applicant’s race to be a negative,” Lee said. If race does play a role with a given student, he said, it is “always considered in a positive light.”
U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs is presiding over the trial and expects to issue a verdict in three weeks. There will be no jury. 

No matter what decision Burroughs issues, it won't be the end of the complaint. Both sides expect to appeal and expect it to wind up in the newly constituted and more conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

The trial opened to a packed courtroom. Two other overflow rooms were also filled Monday, a day after backers from both sides hosted separate rallies in the Boston area.

Harvard senior Caroline Zheng, who was born in China and moved to the U.S. when she was 4, first heard about the case in the spring and got involved because she was “tired of Asian Americans being used as a wedge to drive apart and disadvantage minorities,” she told the Harvard Crimson.

_______________________________________________________________________________