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.

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.

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. 

Affirmative action at risk; Supreme Court wants to hear from the Biden administration on the Harvard admissions complaint

Asian Americans demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court Building.

ANALYSIS

The U.S. Supreme Court's action asking for the opinion of the Biden administration on the Harvard admissions case may indicate that the justices are unsure if the case merits a ruling from the nation's high court.

Critics of Harvard's admission process, which they claim discriminates against Asian American applicants, appealed the case to the Supreme Court hoping the justices' conservative majority would reverse the decisions of two lower courts and rule in their favor.

Although Trump's Department of Justice already filed a friend of the court brief in favor of the plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), most legal experts expect that the Biden DOJ would reverse that brief.

The justices reviewed the case Thursday to decide whether or not to accept to hear the appeal. Instead, they requested a “call for the views of the Solicitor General” — known as a CVSG, not an unusual action.

However, Biden has not yet named a Solicitor General. That role is being filled by Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.  In this case, the CVSG may delay a decision on the petition until the fall, though the case could still be heard during the Court’s 2021-2022 term that begins in October with a ruling delivered in 2022.

The Supreme Court set no deadline for the filing in the admissions case that is filed by SFFA on behalf of Asian American students, although none of the student plaintiffs offered in-person testimony in the lower courts. 

SFFA claims Harvard's consideration of race in evaluating a student's application works against Asian Americans who scored higher in standardized tests than some of the applicants who were accepted.

SFFA President Edward Blum, an anti-affirmative action crusader, wrote in an email that the Supreme Court’s invitation for the current administration's position was not unexpected.

“Students for Fair Admissions remains hopeful that, regardless of the views of the solicitor general, the justices will grant to hear our case and end race-based affirmative action in college admissions,” he wrote.

Harvard did not comment on the justices' decision.

John C. Yang, president of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, which filed a brief backing Harvard's admission practices, said that the evidence reviewed by the two lower courts is proof that the Supreme Court should deny SFFA’s petition. “We think the evidence is clear, as demonstrated by both the District Court and the 1st Circuit opinion that there was no discrimination against Asian Americans. And we don’t think that this is a case that is worthy of Supreme Court review,” said Yang.

Yang said the evidence also proved that using race as one among many factors in admissions has helped to increase diversity in higher education more broadly, and that it is a “permissible goal, according to a long line of Supreme Court precedents.”

“And we have seen the damage that has been done when race is not allowed to be considered. So from a statistical perspective, it is clear,” added Yang. Statistics confirm that Harvard dropped the consideration of race in its application process, African American and Hispanic enrollment would decline from 14 percent to 6 percent and 14 percent to 9 percent, respectively.

Initially, the SFFA complaint, which was first filed 2014, was portrayed by mainstream media emphasized the irony of a minority protesting a program meant to help them, giving the impression that the majority of Asian Americans were against affirmative action. That more sensational image was far from the truth.  Recent surveys by  API Data indicates that 70% of AAPI support affirmative action.

“But just as important to us is the humanity of this," said Yang. "We cannot see how a student can tell their story without including race in many of their applications.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: A word of caution -- this aanalysis is news laced with opinion, readers are encouraged to seek multiple sources to form their own opinion.

Tech tycoon accused of paying bribes for son's admission to Harvard

HARVARD

Harvard University's fencing team was coached accused of accepting bribes.

A high-tech executive is accused of bribing a Harvard coach in order to get his sons into Harvard University.

The former fencing coach at Harvard College and a Maryland businessman Jie “Jack” Zhao were arrested Monday (Nov. 16) and charged with conspiring to secure the admission of the businessman’s two sons to Harvard in exchange for bribes totaling more than $1.5 million.

Peter Brand, 67, of Cambridge, Mass., and Zhao, 61, of Potomac, Md., were charged by criminal complaint with conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery. Brand will make an initial appearance in federal court in Boston. Zhao made  his initial appearance in federal court in Greenbelt, Md.

Brand’s and Zhao’s plan to circumvent the college admissions process ended up backfiring on both of them. "Now they are accused of exchanging more than $1.5 million in bribes for their own personal benefit,” said Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division.

The scheme was intended to gai admission of Zhao's two sons to Harvard by recruiting them to join the men's fencing team coached by Brand. Brand was fired last year.

Their arrest comes more than a year after The Boston Globe reported that Brand sold his home for nearly double its assessed value to Zhao. Prosecutors say Zhao also paid for Brand’s car and made college tuition payments on behalf of Brand’s sons.

It is alleged that in or about May 2012, Brand told a co-conspirator, “Jack doesn’t need to take me anywhere and his boys don’t have to be great fencers. All I need is a good incentive to recruit them[.] You can tell him that[.]” 

In February 2013, as part of the alleged scheme, Zhao made a purported donation of $1 million to a fencing charity operated by a co-conspirator. Zhao’s older son was admitted to Harvard as a fencing recruit in December 2013, and matriculated in the fall of 2014. Shortly thereafter, the charity passed $100,000 on to the Peter Brand Foundation, a charitable entity established by Brand and his spouse. Thereafter, Zhao began making payments to, or for the benefit of, Brand.

In total, Zhao made $1.5 million in payments to Brand, or for Brand’s personal benefit, even as Brand recruited Zhao’s younger son to the Harvard fencing team. 

Zhao allegedly paid for Brand’s car, made college tuition payments for Brand’s son, paid the mortgage on Brand’s Needham residence, and later purchased the residence for well above its market value, thus allowing Brand to purchase a more expensive residence in Cambridge that Zhao then paid to renovate. Zhao’s younger son was admitted to Harvard in 2017. 

The complaint alleges that Brand did not disclose the payments to Harvard when recruiting Zhao’s sons.

“Jack Zhao’s children were academic stars in high school and internationally competitive fencers who obtained admission to Harvard on their own merit,” defense attorney Bill Weinreb said, according to the Washington Post. “Both of them fenced for Harvard at the Division One level throughout their college careers. Mr. Zhao adamantly denies these charges and will vigorously contest them in court.”

In a similar statement, Brand’s attorney, Douglas S. Brooks, said: “The students were academic and fencing stars. Coach Brand did nothing wrong in connection with their admission to Harvard. He looks forward to the truth coming out in court.”

The charge of conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Zhao's case is not related to the highly publicized cases in which Hollywood celebrities and other China-based billionaires through an admissions consultant  bribed university officials to get their children into higly selective United States universities with fake test scores and/or athletic credentials.

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. 

Harvard, MIT, Northeastern file suit to block ICE action against international students

ASAM NEWS

Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Northeastern University are suing the Trump administration over a guideline that would prevent international students from taking online classes in the US, CNN reports. 

On Monday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released guidelines which stated that “students attending schools operating entirely online may not take a full online course load and remain in the United States,” according to CNBC

The University of Southern California will file an amicus brief in support of the legal action by the eastern schools.

The University of California, which has over 41,000 international students, said late Wednesday that it fight the ICE action. It is unclear if UC will join the lawsuit by Harvard, MIT and Northeastern or if it will file a separate suit.

Students enrolled in educational institutions operating entirely online “must depart the country or take other measures, such as transferring to a school with in-person instruction.”

The Department of Homeland Security has said that “all students scheduled to study at a U.S. institution in the fall will be able to do so, though some will be required to study from abroad if their presence is not required for any in-person classes in the United States,” according to CNN.

ICE has recommended that international students enrolled in programs going online-only in the fall consider transferring to schools that will be offering in-person instruction.

According to CNN, there are more than 1 million international students in the United States. Many are enrolled in schools that will be using online-only instruction for the upcoming fall semester.

Harvard is one of those schools. Earlier this week, the university announced that all course instruction would be delivered online. They say the ICE guidelines could impact 5,000 international students.

Harvard and MIT jointly filed the lawsuit against ICE and the Department of Homeland Security in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They say that the ICE guidelines violate the Administrative Procedures Act and put universities in an “untenable situation” of either proceeding with online-only instruction or attempting to implement some form of in-person instruction.

“It appears that it was designed purposefully to place pressure on colleges and universities to open their on-campus classrooms for in-person instruction this fall, without regard to concerns for the health and safety of students, instructors, and others,” Harvard’s President Bacow said, according to CNBC.

The lawsuit also says that the guidelines create challenges for international students. It argues that many international students will not be able to access online instruction if they are forced to return to their home countries.

“Moreover, for many students, returning to their home countries to participate in online instruction is impossible, impracticable, prohibitively expensive, and/or dangerous,” the lawsuit states, according to CNN.

It criticized ICE’s suggestion that international students simply transfer to schools offering in-person instruction.

“Just weeks from the start of the fall semester, these students are largely unable to transfer to universities providing on-campus instruction, notwithstanding ICE’s suggestion that they might do so to avoid removal from the country,” the lawsuit states.

Bacow said that Harvard and MIT are committed to ensuring that international students can continue their studies without worry.

“We will pursue this case vigorously so that our international students — and international students at institutions across the country — can continue their studies without the threat of deportation,” Bacow said.

Views From the Edge contributed to this report.