Law Affirmative Action Abolished: U.S Supreme Court Outlaws Racial Discrimination In College Admissions.

[Arkain2K]

Supreme Court will consider challenge to affirmative action in college admissions
The case, naming Harvard and the University of North Carolina, is the most serious threat in decades to affirmative action at public and private colleges and universities.
By Pete Williams | Jan. 24, 2022

​

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear challenges to the admissions process at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, presenting the most serious threat in decades to the use of affirmative action by the nation's public and private colleges and universities.

Despite similar challenges, the court has repeatedly upheld affirmative action in the past. But two liberal justices who were key to those decisions are gone — Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their replacements, Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, are conservative and considered less likely to find the practice constitutional.

In the latest case, groups backed by a longtime opponent of affirmative action, Edward Blum of Maine, sued Harvard and UNC in federal court, claiming that Harvard's undergraduate admissions system discriminated against Asian American students and that UNC's discriminated against both Asian American and white students. Lower courts ruled that the schools' limited consideration of race was a legitimate effort to achieve a more diverse student body.

The lawsuits were targeted to challenge the admissions process at both a private and a public university.

The Supreme Court has long barred racial quotas in admissions. But it has allowed schools to consider a student's race to be one "plus factor" among many other qualities, provided the admissions process looks at the overall qualifications of applicants and uses race no more than necessary to achieve a level of diversity.

The challengers in both cases, Students for Fair Admissions, urged the justices to overrule the court’s 2003 decision on affirmative action, which upheld the University of Michigan's use of race as a plus factor and served as a model for similar admissions programs nationwide.

That decision "endorsed racial objectives that are amorphous and unmeasurable," the challengers said in asking the Supreme Court to take their appeal. The Constitution requires equal protection and contains no exceptions, they said, contending that Harvard admits Asian Americans at lower rates than whites and values Black or Hispanic ethnicity more highly.

"If a university wants to admit students with certain experiences (say, overcoming discrimination), then it can evaluate whether individual applicants have that experience," their brief said. "It cannot simply use race as a proxy for certain experiences or views."

If the Supreme Court did overrule its 2003 precedent, affirmative action programs would be in serious jeopardy nationwide.

"Mandating race-blind admissions programs would undermine those universities' ability to engage in the kind of individualized review that yields a class that is both diverse and excellent," Harvard's lawyers told the court.

They said the university pursues many kinds of diversity in admitting the freshman class, including academic interests, beliefs, political views, geographical origins and family circumstances, as well as racial identity. The process does not automatically reward a plus to students from a particular race, their brief said.

In ruling for Harvard, a federal district court judge said abandoning considerations of race "would cause a sharp decline in the percentage of African American and Hispanic students."

The Supreme Court will likely hear the cases in its next term, which begins in October.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1287915

 

[fungi]

Somehow, this just occurred to me.
This anti-asian policy might be a political tool against China.

Who knows?

Inb4 "CT nut"-callers.

 

[Arkain2K]

Somehow, this just occurred to me.
This anti-asian policy might be a political tool against China.

Who knows?

Inb4 "CT nut"-callers.

It's universally acknowledged that you don't go around calling African-Americans "Africans", so why would you go into a thread about Asian-Americans, take away their American identity, and then randomly referencing a perceived Asian enemy on the other side of the globe, when the people we're talking about here are in fact your fellow Americans?

With that exclusion mindset, you'd be exposed as a closet racist long before a CT nut, though both can certainly be accurate.

 

[Scerpi]

Supreme Court will consider challenge to affirmative action in college admissions
The case, naming Harvard and the University of North Carolina, is the most serious threat in decades to affirmative action at public and private colleges and universities.
By Pete Williams | Jan. 24, 2022

​

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear challenges to the admissions process at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, presenting the most serious threat in decades to the use of affirmative action by the nation's public and private colleges and universities.

Despite similar challenges, the court has repeatedly upheld affirmative action in the past. But two liberal justices who were key to those decisions are gone — Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their replacements, Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, are conservative and considered less likely to find the practice constitutional.

In the latest case, groups backed by a longtime opponent of affirmative action, Edward Blum of Maine, sued Harvard and UNC in federal court, claiming that Harvard's undergraduate admissions system discriminated against Asian American students and that UNC's discriminated against both Asian American and white students. Lower courts ruled that the schools' limited consideration of race was a legitimate effort to achieve a more diverse student body.

The lawsuits were targeted to challenge the admissions process at both a private and a public university.

The Supreme Court has long barred racial quotas in admissions. But it has allowed schools to consider a student's race to be one "plus factor" among many other qualities, provided the admissions process looks at the overall qualifications of applicants and uses race no more than necessary to achieve a level of diversity.

The challengers in both cases, Students for Fair Admissions, urged the justices to overrule the court’s 2003 decision on affirmative action, which upheld the University of Michigan's use of race as a plus factor and served as a model for similar admissions programs nationwide.

That decision "endorsed racial objectives that are amorphous and unmeasurable," the challengers said in asking the Supreme Court to take their appeal. The Constitution requires equal protection and contains no exceptions, they said, contending that Harvard admits Asian Americans at lower rates than whites and values Black or Hispanic ethnicity more highly.

"If a university wants to admit students with certain experiences (say, overcoming discrimination), then it can evaluate whether individual applicants have that experience," their brief said. "It cannot simply use race as a proxy for certain experiences or views."

If the Supreme Court did overrule its 2003 precedent, affirmative action programs would be in serious jeopardy nationwide.

"Mandating race-blind admissions programs would undermine those universities' ability to engage in the kind of individualized review that yields a class that is both diverse and excellent," Harvard's lawyers told the court.

They said the university pursues many kinds of diversity in admitting the freshman class, including academic interests, beliefs, political views, geographical origins and family circumstances, as well as racial identity. The process does not automatically reward a plus to students from a particular race, their brief said.

In ruling for Harvard, a federal district court judge said abandoning considerations of race "would cause a sharp decline in the percentage of African American and Hispanic students."

The Supreme Court will likely hear the cases in its next term, which begins in October.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1287915

I wouldn't be opposed to all College Admissions being completely anonymous with Gender, Race, Location, Etc blind to the reviewers. Only allowing admission on merit.

 

[fungi]

It's universally acknowledged that you don't go around calling African-Americans "Africans", so why would you go into a thread about Asian-Americans, take away their American identity, and then randomly referencing a perceived Asian enemy on the other side of the globe, when the people we're talking about here are in fact your fellow Americans?

With that exclusion mindset, you'd be exposed as a closet racist long before a CT nut, though both can certainly be accurate.

Your post does not make any sense. At all.
This whole thread is dedicated to the difference in treatment towards african-americans and asian-americans.

And if you do not see that irl, then you're an ignorant person.

No one ever asks a black person in the states: "do you speak english?"
People ask that of asian-americans on the reg and act surprized when those "asians" actually happen to speak english, eventhough some of those "asians" are native speakers.

 

[Arkain2K]

During a San Dieguito Union High School board training session Monday about diversity, equity and inclusion, Board Trustee Michael Allman asked the district superintendent a question: “Do we know why Asian students do so well in school?”

He was asking about district data that showed that several groups of Asian students in the district — Asian Indian, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese and Chinese students — receive fewer D and F grades than other racial groups.

Superintendent Cheryl James-Ward told Allman she knows part of the reason: It’s because wealthy families have been moving into San Dieguito from China.

 

[Arkain2K]

San Dieguito superintendent apologizes for saying Asian students succeed because they’re wealthy Chinese
Carl Samson | April 14, 2022

San Dieguito Union High School District Superintendent Cheryl James-Ward has apologized for remarks that stereotyped Asian students as high-achievers from high-income families.

The official’s comments, seen as perpetuating the model minority myth, were reportedly made during a board training session on Monday on diversity, equity and inclusion.

Citing data that showed Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese students getting fewer D and F grades than other ethnic or racial groups, Michael Allman, a board trustee, asked James-Ward, “Do we know why Asian students do so well in school?”

In response, the superintendent said it’s because those students are from rich families coming from China.

“We have an influx of Asians from China, and the people who are able to make that journey are wealthy,” James-Ward said. “You cannot come to America and buy a house for $2 million unless you have money.”

She then cited her own community as an example.

“In my community, in Carmel Valley... we had a large influx of Chinese families moving in, sight unseen, into our homes, into the community, and that requires money.”

James-Ward added that entire families — including grandparents — immigrate to the U.S., allowing for a strong support system for students at home. On the other hand, some Latinx families simply “don’t have that type of money,” and parents work jobs that leave them with no time to help their children.

The official’s remarks quickly drew criticism from the community. The Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, whose leaders are Chinese American, said in a statement that her comments were “deeply offensive, grossly inaccurate and intentionally divisive, which ill-fits her leadership role in a major school district,” according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

A video of James-Ward’s remarks was also posted on YouTube and has been viewed more than 4,000 times. YouTube commenters responded by pointing out the diversity of Asian communities, as well as the value of meritocracy.

“Absolutely shameful and ignorant comments. My parents are the perfect example of how hard work and discipline can lead to success in America. To study hard and achieve academically is the least I can do to respect their efforts. This was true back when I was in high school and college and remains true today,” a YouTube user commented.

Others took the opportunity to highlight their own hard work.

“Unbelievable pre-judgement and stereotype. I came to the United States 24 years ago, with only 200$ in my pocket. I lived in a basement, I worked in buffet restaurants and I walked more than 1.5 hours one way to the campus even during the coldest winter storm in Pennsylvania,” one user wrote. “Even under all the stress, I still managed to get two masters degrees within 2.5 years from a top 30 university, straight A. Don't be arrogant saying ‘wealth’ is the only reason Asians do good at school.”

“I’m an immigrant from China. I came here with $720 dollars in my pocket. In my first five years in school, I worked almost all weekends and holidays,” another commented. “Now both my wife and I have busy work. But we spend at least one hour per night with our kids when they are young. Our TV is not allowed to turn on on weekdays. We teach our kids the values of hard work. We told our kids if they fail at school work, they are the ones to be blamed, not other people or other ethnic groups. This superintendent doesn’t want less advanced students to work hard so she can stay in power.”

James-Ward reportedly responded to the backlash in an interview by saying her comments were taken out of context to cause a “firestorm.” The superintendent reportedly also faced a recent dispute relating to redistricting.

“I should’ve said it differently, right, because the issue is very complex. I should’ve just left it at ‘complex,’” she said.

Following the interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, James-Ward called the reporter back to apologize for her comments, stating,

“If I harmed any member of my community, I am deeply sorry, and that would never be my intent.”

https://news.yahoo.com/san-dieguito-superintendent-apologizes-saying-212630118.html

 

[Deleted member 484047]

She didn't put her foot in her mouth, she inserted the whole damn leg.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Right after we literally appoint a diversity hire.

 

[Arkain2K]

San Dieguito superintendent placed on leave after comments about Asian students
APRIL 22, 2022

The San Dieguito Union High School board voted to place Superintendent Cheryl James-Ward on leave, over comments she made saying “Asians do well because they are wealthy families who come from China,” according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

The vote came after three hours of public comments calling for the superintendent to resign or be fired.

James-Ward had sent out a written apology to families, held a town hall, and apologized again at the school board meeting.

https://edsource.org/updates/san-di...-on-leave-after-comments-about-asian-students

 

[Arkain2K]

-----

 

[Scerpi]

-----

Shocking….

That it wasn’t 4-0 and that she wasn’t terminated outright.

 

[Arkain2K]

By many standards, Michael Wang, 25, was the perfect student in high school. Wang graduated in the top 0.5 percent of his class with a 4.67 weighted GPA, near-perfect test scores and countless extracurriculars.

When all of this resulted in rejections from his first choice-schools, he wondered what more he could’ve done, and then another thought crossed his mind — had he been rejected because he was Asian American?

In October 2022, the Supreme Court will be hearing two cases to decide whether they will be ending the use of race in admissions across the country.

 

[Arkain2K]

San Dieguito superintendent who said Asian students succeed because they’re wealthy Chinese is fired
Ryan General | Tue, June 28, 2022

A superintendent of a high school in California was fired on Sunday, two and a half months after she made controversial comments linking Asian students’ academic performance to the wealth of their immigrant families.

The San Dieguito Union High School Board unanimously voted to fire Superintendent Cheryl James-Ward, who made the divisive remarks during a board training session on diversity, equity and inclusion back in April.

Michael Allman, a board trustee, was citing data that showed Asian students are getting fewer D and F grades than other ethnic or racial groups in the district when he asked James-Ward, “Do we know why Asian students do so well in school?”

James-Ward, the district’s first Black superintendent, responded that it is because the students are from rich families originating from China.

“We have an influx of Asians from China, and the people who are able to make that journey are wealthy,” James-Ward was quoted as saying. “You cannot come to America and buy a house for $2 million unless you have money.”

A board member argued that cultural issues rather than wealth may be a more important reason behind Asian American success. However, James-Ward doubled down on her argument.

“We look where our kids live,” she said. “In my community, Carmel Valley, I have, not so much today, but up until a couple years ago, we had a large influx of Chinese families moving in sight unseen into our homes, into the community, and that requires money.”

The Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, which has Chinese American leaders, said in a statement that her comments were “deeply offensive, grossly inaccurate and intentionally divisive, which ill-fits her leadership role in a major school district.”

A group of Asian parents told board members during a meeting in April that they were “hurt” by James-Ward’s comments. Many of them called for her resignation, while others demanded that she should be fired.

Following the backlash, James-Ward issued at least two apologies, one of which was made before the public comment portion of the April board meeting.

“I understand why my comments caused so much pain,” she said before the meeting.

James-Ward was fired without cause, effective August 15, which means she is entitled to a year’s salary — or $288,000 — as a buyout.

In response to the decision, James-Ward said the firing was done in retaliation for the gender discrimination complaint she filed earlier this year against one of the school board members. Her lawyer reiterated the official’s previous plan to sue the school district.

https://news.yahoo.com/san-dieguito-superintendent-said-asian-182422726.html

 

[Arkain2K]

Supreme Court outlaws affirmative action in college admissions, says race can’t be used
BY MARK SHERMAN | June 29, 2023



WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down affirmative action in college admissions, declaring race cannot be a factor and forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies.

The court’s conservative majority effectively overturned cases reaching back 45 years in invalidating admissions plans at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation’s oldest private and public colleges, respectively.

The decision, like last year’s momentous abortion ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, marked the realization of a long-sought conservative legal goal, this time finding that race-conscious admissions plans violate the Constitution and a law that applies to colleges that receive federal funding, as almost all do.

Those schools will be forced to reshape their admissions practices, especially top schools that are more likely to consider the race of applicants.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that for too long universities have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

From the White House, President Joe Biden said he “strongly, strongly” disagreed with the court’s ruling and urged colleges to seek other routes to diversity rather than let the ruling “be the last word.”

Besides the conservative-liberal split, the fight over affirmative action showed the deep gulf between the three justices of color, each of whom wrote separately and vividly about race in America and where the decision might lead.

Justice Clarence Thomas — the nation’s second Black justice, who had long called for an end to affirmative action — wrote that the decision “sees the universities’ admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s first Latina, wrote in dissent that the decision “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.”

Both Thomas and Sotomayor, the two justices who have acknowledged affirmative action played a role in their admissions to college and law school, took the unusual step of reading summaries of their opinions aloud in the courtroom.

In a separate dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — the court’s first Black female justice — called the decision “truly a tragedy for us all.”

Jackson, who sat out the Harvard case because she had been a member of an advisory governing board, wrote, “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”

The vote was 6-3 in the North Carolina case and 6-2 in the Harvard case. Justice Elena Kagan was the other dissenter.

Biden, who quickly stepped before cameras at the White House, said of the nation’s colleges: “They should not abandon their commitment to ensure student bodies of diverse backgrounds and experience that reflect all of America,” He said colleges should evaluate “adversity overcome” by candidates.

In fact, an applicant for admission still can write about, and colleges can consider, “how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise,” Roberts wrote.

But the institutions “may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today,” he wrote.

Presidents of many colleges quickly issued statements affirming their commitment to diversity regardless of the court’s decision. Many said they were still assessing the impact but would follow federal law.

“Harvard will continue to be a vibrant community whose members come from all walks of life, all over the world,” school President Lawrence Bacow said in a statement.

President Reginald DesRoches of Rice University in Houston said he was “greatly disappointed” by the decision but “more resolute than ever” to pursue diversity. “The law may change, but Rice’s commitment to diversity will not,” he said in a campus message.

The affirmative action cases were brought by conservative activist Edward Blum, who also was behind an earlier challenge against the University of Texas as well as the case that led the court in 2013 to end use of a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act.

Blum formed Students for Fair Admissions, which filed the lawsuits against both schools in 2014.

The group argued that the Constitution forbids the use of race in college admissions and called for overturning earlier Supreme Court decisions that said otherwise.

Roberts’ opinion effectively did so, both Thomas and the dissenters wrote.

The only institutions of higher education explicitly left out of the ruling were the nation’s military academies, Roberts wrote, suggesting that national security interests could affect the legal analysis.

Blum’s group had contended that colleges and universities can use other, race-neutral ways to assemble a diverse student body, including by focusing on socioeconomic status and eliminating the preference for children of alumni and major donors.

The schools said that they use race in a limited way, but that eliminating it as a factor altogether would make it much harder to achieve a student body that looks like America.

At the eight Ivy League universities, the number of nonwhite students increased from 27% in 2010 to 35% in 2021, according to federal data. Those men and women include Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Pacific Islander and biracial students.

Nine states already prohibit any consideration of race in admissions to their public colleges and universities. The end of affirmative action in higher education in California, Michigan, Washington state and elsewhere led to a steep drop in minority enrollment in those states’ leading public universities.

The other states are: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Oklahoma.

In 2020, California voters easily rejected a ballot measure to bring back affirmative action.

A poll last month by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed 63% of U.S. adults say the court should allow colleges to consider race as part of the admissions process, yet few believe students’ race should ultimately play a major role in decisions. A Pew Research Center survey released last week found that half of Americans disapprove of considerations of applicants’ race, while a third approve.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-...college-race-f83d6318017ec9b9029b12ee2256e744

 

[Arkain2K]

 

[Arkain2K]

Gosh damn, somebody please remind Gavin Newsom that the people of California are decades ahead of the Supreme Court.

Prop. 16: California's affirmative action measure fails
By Janie Har​

California voters have rejected an attempt to reinstate affirmative action programs in public hiring, contracting and college admissions, keeping a 1996 ban on the government granting preferential treatment based on race and gender.

Supporters of Proposition 16 had hoped to overturn the ban amid a national reckoning over racism following the deaths of Black Americans and other people of color by police.

They said affirmative action programs would expand opportunities for people who still face systemic racism and sexism in education and at work. Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris backs the effort.

Opponents said the government should treat every person equally, and never use race, ethnicity or gender to promote or discriminate against an individual.

Before the vote on Tuesday, public polling had indicated that Proposition 16 was struggling, suggesting that voters may not be ready to repeal a quarter-century-old ban on affirmative action in public hiring, contracting and college admissions.

Supporters raised $31 million and included chambers of commerce, tech companies, celebrities such as Rita Moreno and Issa Rae and Democratic leaders. They say affirmative action programs are critical to undoing generations of systemic racism and sexism that holds back people of color and women and ran ads likening opponents to white supremacists.

In contrast, opponents raised $1.6 million, fueled by smaller donations from a grassroots network that includes Chinese immigrants worried that public universities will bypass Asian American applicants with higher scores and grades in favor of lower-scoring African American and Latino students. They say discrimination should stay illegal.

Opponents celebrated via Zoom on Tuesday, cheering their David-versus-Goliath fight as results rolled in. The measure was leading in San Francisco and Los Angeles counties, but failing in other large Southern California counties.

Ward Connerly, the African American businessman who led the 1996 campaign to end affirmative action and to prohibit the state from granting preferences or discriminating against a person due to race or gender, said the campaign was “heartened” by the results.

“The people are saying we want to be treated as equals,” said Connerly, 81.

Supporters did not respond to requests for comment, although they acknowledged before Election Day that the race would be tight. They said they did not have enough time to campaign on what they called a complicated issue.

Angel Chavez, 45, a San Diego tattoo artist and supporter of President Donald Trump, said he voted against the affirmative action measure.

“I’m Mexican. Yet, I’ve never felt racism,” he said. “If I don’t get a job, it’s because somebody was more qualified.”

In San Francisco, Harry Rochester, who voted for Joe Biden for president, said he was sad when voters banned affirmative action.

“Being an African American man in America, I don’t think I would have gotten as far as I have gotten today if it wasn’t for affirmative action,” said Rochester, 40.

Mark DiCamillo, director of a poll conducted by the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, said he was puzzled by the lack of support for the measure.

The survey of likely voters released Oct. 26 indicated 49% were opposed and 38% were in favor. A poll by the Public Policy Institute of California indicated similar trends.

“My only explanation is that it’s fallen between the cracks,” he said.

Lawmakers placed Proposition 16 on the ballot following the death of George Floyd, a Black man, by Minneapolis police. They pointed to his death as clear evidence of the barriers that hold back Black Americans and other people of color.

The coronavirus pandemic also has highlighted stark inequities among minority groups in health care, education and wages.

California voters banned affirmative action in 1996 through a ballot measure that was pushed by the Republican governor at the time, Pete Wilson. The most populous state in the country is more diverse and less Republican than it was 24 years ago.

Latinos make up 39% of the state’s population, followed by white people at nearly 37%, Asian Americans at almost 17% and African Americans at under 7%. The percentage of Republicans in the state has dropped from 36% in 1996 to 24% now.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long outlawed racial quotas, but it has ruled that universities may use tailored programs to promote diversity.

https://www.ktvu.com/news/prop-16-californias-affirmative-action-measure-fails.amp

 

[Scerpi]

By many standards, Michael Wang, 25, was the perfect student in high school. Wang graduated in the top 0.5 percent of his class with a 4.67 weighted GPA, near-perfect test scores and countless extracurriculars.

When all of this resulted in rejections from his first choice-schools, he wondered what more he could’ve done, and then another thought crossed his mind — had he been rejected because he was Asian American?

In October 2022, the Supreme Court will be hearing two cases to decide whether they will be ending the use of race in admissions across the country.

@Sinister

Here you go…. This is what you’re supporting

 

[Scerpi]

Gosh damn, somebody please remind Gavin Newsom that the people of California are decades ahead of the Supreme Court.

Don’t worry… Berkeley professor admits they still do it…

They just don’t say it out loud

 

[Arkain2K]

Why I helped strike down Harvard affirmative action in the Supreme Court
By Rikki Schlott | June 29, 2023

Calvin Yang, 21, joined the advocacy group Students for Fair Admissions in suing Harvard, alleging that the school’s race-conscious admissions practices systemically disadvantage Asian applicants. (The group also filed a complaint against the University of North Carolina.) After the US Supreme Court found in the group’s favor Thursday, Yang tells Rikki Schlott why the fight was worth it.

I had a 3.9 GPA, a 1550 SAT score, two varsity sports, my own political policy startup and a spot on Canada’s 30 Under 30 list when I applied to Harvard.

It was my dream school. And, when I was rejected, I couldn’t help but wonder whether my skin color was the reason why.

That’s why I joined Students for Fair Admissions in their case against Harvard University, seeking to overturn race-conscious admissions practices that I believe disadvantage Asian college applicants like me.

Finally, two years later, we just emerged victorious in the Supreme Court.

While I was thrilled when I got the news that the court had ruled that the Harvard and University of North Carolina’s affirmative action programs were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights law, I’m not all that surprised.

The court has sided with us and affirmed that Asian Americans are routinely being penalized because their last name is Kim or Lee.

I believe affirmative action is a well-intentioned idea that is poorly executed in reality. I appreciate the desire to incubate a diverse generation of America’s future leaders, but, at the same time, the current system hurts Asian applicants. And that is just a fact.

When I was applying to college in 2020, I did everything I could to appear “less Asian” on my applications. I even glossed over the fact that I was a very talented piano player because I was afraid it might strike an admissions officer as too stereotypical.

The fact that our skin color is a disadvantage in the application process is just an open secret in the Asian American community. I constantly hear from high-school students who reach out to me concerned about their admissions prospects because of their ethnicity.

Every online forum or parent group chat for families in the college application process is filled with tips on how to make your application seem less Asian. That’s just so sad.

But all of that is going to change now, thanks to the Supreme Court.

We still don’t know exactly how the colleges are going to change their admissions practices in response to this ruling, but there’s no question in my mind that it will bring about more equity.

Going forward, Asian students are going to be able to focus more on who they are as people rather than trying to appear less Asian for an admissions officer.

I definitely think I would have emphasized different aspects of my application and not played down my race had affirmative action been struck down before I applied to colleges.

I can only speculate, but I think my chances of getting into Harvard would have been higher. It’s definitely possible that race-conscious admissions were what stood between me and my dream school.

And, even if I still didn’t get in, I wouldn’t be left to wonder if it was because I’m Chinese-Canadian.

But, that said, I’m not at all resentful. I don’t have some personal vendetta against Harvard. I’m a rising junior focused on legal studies and political economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and I absolutely love my school.

I’m not fighting for myself; I’m fighting for my community at large.

I prefer to look forward, not backwards. One day I hope to have kids, and I’m glad they’ll grow up in a society that judges them based on their character rather than their last name or the color of their skin.

The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a pretty monumental step in the history of Asians in this country.

For so long we have been the model minority that doesn’t stand up and fight for our own rights. But today we’re stepping up.

I hope that Asians will continue to fight for our rightful place in this country and to be acknowledged for our contributions to society.

https://nypost.com/2023/06/29/why-i-helped-strike-down-affirmative-action-in-the-supreme-court/