Supreme Court Asked To Hear Harvard Anti-Asian Discrimination Case
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: “If [the First Circuit] decision stands, then universities can use race even if they impose racial penalties, make backward-looking racial adjustments, ignore critical mass, eschew sunset provisions, and identify no substantial downsides to race-neutral alternatives. The Court’s precedent does not allow this unbridled use of race.”
A group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard University alleging discrimination against Asian-Americans in admissions through the use of soft factors.
We covered the lawsuit since it’s inception in 2015, through the trial court decision favoring Harvard, and onto the appeal in which the Trump administration supported the Asian American students, and then the appeals court ruling in Harvard’s favor:
- Complaint Says Harvard Discriminates Against Asian-Americans (2015)
- New Harvard President Rejects Claims of Discrimination Against Asian-Americans (2018)
- Federal Judge Sides With Harvard in Discrimination Case Brought by Asian Applicants (2019)
- Trump administration sides with Asian American students in discrimination suit against Harvard (2020)
- Appeals Court upholds Harvard’s discrimination against Asian-Americans (2020)
We covered the appeal decision in detail, noting that there was no real dispute that Harvard discriminated, as the appeals court acknowledged:
A race-conscious admissions program is not narrowly tailored if a university uses it despite workable race-neutral alternatives. See Fisher I, 570 U.S. at 312. The district court found that eliminating race as a factor in admissions, without taking any remedial measures, would reduce African American representation at Harvard from 14% to 6% and Hispanic representation from 14% to 9%. SFFA II, 397 F. Supp. 3d at 178. It found that at least 10% of Harvard’s class would not be admitted if Harvard did not consider race and that race is a determinative tip for approximately 45% of all admitted African American and Hispanic students. Id.
The appeals court found, however, that Havard so far had couched such discrimination in the legally necessary verbiage under existing Supreme Court jurisprudence:
Harvard has identified specific, measurable goals it seeks to achieve by considering race in admissions. These goals are more precise and open to judicial scrutiny than the ones articulated by the University of Texas and approved by the Fisher II majority….
These goals make clear that Harvard’s interest in diversity “is not an interest in simple ethnic diversity, in which a specified percentage of the student body is in effect guaranteed to be members of selected ethnic groups,” but “a far broader array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element.” Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 722 (quoting Grutter, 539 U.S. at 324-25). Race is one piece of Harvard’s interest in diversity. It is “considered as part of a broader effort to achieve ‘exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.’” Id. at 723 (quoting Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330). …
Harvard has sufficiently met the requirements of Fisher I, Fisher II, and earlier cases to show the specific goals it achieves from diversity and that its interest is compelling….
SFFA has just filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (pdf.) asking the Supreme Court to take the case, and raising the following Questions for review:
1. Should this Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions?
2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bans race-based admissions that, if done by a public university, would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 276 n.23 (2003). Is Harvard violating Title VI by penalizing Asian-American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race, and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives?
Here’s is part of the introduction as to why the Supreme Court should hear the case:
But given Harvard’s flagrant violations of Title VI, it fails strict scrutiny even under Grutter. Harvard’s mistreatment of Asian-American applicants is appalling. Harvard penalizes them because, according to its admissions office, they lack leadership and confidence and are less likable and kind. This is reason enough to grant review. That Harvard engages in racial balancing and ignores race-neutral alternatives also proves that Harvard does not use race as a last resort. All of this makes intervention that much more urgent.
This case is the kind of important individual rights dispute that this Court has not hesitated to hear. Review thus would be warranted if the defendant were any university subject to Title VI. But it isn’t just any university. It’s Harvard. Harvard has been at the center of the controversy over ethnic- and racebased admissions for nearly a century. The Court should grant certiorari.
The Petition ended with this point:
The First Circuit violated this Court’s precedent in several important ways. If its decision stands, then universities can use race even if they impose racial penalties, make backward-looking racial adjustments, ignore critical mass, eschew sunset provisions, and identify no substantial downsides to race-neutral alternatives. The Court’s precedent does not allow this unbridled use of race. If it does, this Court should be the one to say so. And if it does, the precedent is not worth keeping.
The Harvard Crimson quotes a Harvard law professor suggesting the Supreme Court may not take the case because it is a private university:
Harvard Law School professor Noah R. Feldman ’92 told the Crimson in January he believes it is “pretty unlikely” the Supreme Court will review the case. Feldman said past Supreme Court cases involving race in admissions have involved public universities, cases in which the constitutional issue is more clearly presented.
It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court takes the case, and whether it chooses finally to end racial discrimination in admissions.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I wonder how Roberts would rule… I wonder?
However he’s told to rule.
Ouch… chicken dinner!
Sorta off topic: Amazon Strips Clarence Thomas Documentary From Streaming Service During Black History Month
FEBRUARY 26, 2021 By Tristan Justice
Since Justice Thomas has been censored from Amazon during Black History month, and most likely because he wrote a dissent standing up for the voting rights of law-abiding citizens, we should give him some kind of award.
It is easy to predict what the Roberts court will do. No standing to sue. Or the case is moot. Whatever.
This is a no-brainer, so Roberts will fuck it up.
How many would have to recuse due to ties to Harvard as a former student
Roberts is out
Breyer is out
Kagan is out
Gorsuch is out
Not sure about the others
Does recusal apply to Leftists ruling on subjects of interest to the Left?
No, or Kagan would have had to recuse from all Obamacare-related cases.
the Supreme Court may not take the case because it is a private university
Since Harvard is not a public university, Title VI doesn’t seem to apply. Does Harvard receive federal funds in any way?
If it doesn’t, isn’t this case a complete non-starter?
If you don’t like it, found your own college.
I want somewhere my grandkid can go.
Given those pushing the inequality act wish it to apply to every last corner under American jurisdiction, Title VI would appear to be only one element of legislation Harvard could be vulnerable to. There are also IRS regulations.
they applied for money from the rcent CARES act, $8.7 million, but due to public shaming they gave it back.
a 2020 story
Last year, for example, Harvard University attracted more than $800 million in research funding, with 70 percent coming from the federal government.
Whatever else Harvard accepts, they to take money from federally-guaranteed student loans and that should be more than enough.
Private bakery, problem solved.
The majority of kids going there get some sort of federal aid so yes Federal gov IS involved
That didn’t seem to be a problem for the courts below. It shouldn’t be a problem for the Supreme Court.
So what if it’s a private university. Courts rule about who private businesses may and may not serve all the time. How is a ruling on private universities deciding they will limit customer numbers by race any different?
I have known my share of supposedly “brilliant” Ivy Leaguers who were as limited, ignorant, and emotion-led as any other.
Affirmative action seems like discrimination for the sake of diversity.
If the goal is to render “higher education” useless, keep finding ways to to exclude the smartest and most capable people. Ivy League educations may be valuable for entry into woke elite society but those needing the services of the brightest and most capable in disciplines that produce the most value to the most people, they will find other ways.
Colleges and universities are digging their own graves. At some point, they will be reduced to over-funded day care centers for a clueless class of useless parasites who will then need to find other hosts to infect. It’s time for the smart people to get over their addiction to universities.
Sadly, I think we have rounded that bend.
This is what I love and despise about the whole legal profession. Professor Jacobson nailed it..
The appeals court found, however, that Harvard so far had couched such discrimination in the legally necessary verbiage under existing Supreme Court jurisprudence:
Can’t live with them, can’t live without them….
This Asian group should have Harvard prove just exactly how diversity is so valuable then demonstrate how Harvard does NOT in fact value, encourage, seek out or even allow diversity of thought and beliefs and how we frame the world which is actually the only way humans are really diverse. This skin, eye and hair color is how you explain diversity to kindegarteners.
Will verdict be they have no standing or it is already happened so nothing can be done?
While the discrimination is blatant and obvious, The harvard case remains a very dangerous case to take to the Supreme Court.
Like Grutter whereby, CA6 crafted an erroneous finding of fact (that there was not quota), Both the district court finding of fact and CA1’s affirmation of the findings of fact was that there was no discrimination. Both the District court and CA1 held that since there was no discrimination, then there was no unconstitutional discrimination. The district court and CA1 did not hold that the discrimination was legal, The held that there was no discrimination.
The US Supreme Court has been loathe to overturn erroneous findings of fact, no matter how blatant and obvious. It was only Thomas in his Grutter dissent that CA6 lied when they held there was no quota.
As such, this case risks enshrining discrimination as constitutional.
China has 5 times the amount of people as the USA. China deputizes ALL citizens to act as its spies and agents when tasked. China already sends 380,000 students spies and agents to study here each year. China also has sweetheart immigration deals for its citizens to come settle here. At what point do you guys get it? This case is about one or more foreign countries taking possession of our advanced schools and thus advanced employment. I’m just stunned that you all are missing or ignoring this….
That’s an immigration issue. Big Tech is looking for the engineers and technical people that our universities are no longer providing in sufficient numbers. So even if we keep the “Chinese-Americans” out of our universities, they will still get the jobs.
No ethnic group can match the success of the South Korean immigrants in terms of succeeding after reaching our shores. The Vietnamese are right behind them. They accomplished this by hitting the ground running upon arrival and setting up businesses. My experience with Chinese has been similar.
When I was studying for my securities licenses I would go to the Glendale and Pasadena public libraries where most of the visitors were Chinese and other Asian children learning their lessons together with their non-English-speaking mothers. That is THE major cultural difference between the ethnic groups that succeed and those that fail. I didn’t see any Asians skateboarding on the library steps with the other children of lesser-accomplished ethnic groups.
We don’t need to handicap those who are doing right all by themselves. It’s not privilege. It’s an advantage that deserves to be rewarded for the good of the entire society. In real life, trophies are earned. Woke = broke in all aspects of life.
Phil you need to find out the real facts not what the chamber of commerce and big tech want you to think. The majority of US STEM graduates are unable to get jobs in their fields due to what is going on with the importation of so called “highly trained and educated foreign workers”.
What is missing in your explanation is how the American grads compare to their Chinese visa competition. American universities have been citing declining enrollments of students in the technical/scientific fields for years. So it’s not just quality but quantity.
You can believe what you want to believe but there is a reason why so many college-educated Americans grads are living in their basements. It’s their unwarranted sense of entitlement. I know plenty of them and wouldn’t hire them myself.
American trust babies are epidemic at all levels today. That is why Mexicans dominate in the lawn care business, e.g. No one wants to “stoop” to doing “Mexican work”. Sad but true. How many of our LI commenters won’t mow the lawn themselves or can get their kids to do it? Like it or not, it’s a real problem.
American STEM grads are some of the highest performing best trained STEM grads in the world. Additionally they have the the language and interpersonal skills to lead and train teams often missing in foreign grads. One of the be main reasons they are not hired is because cheap Indian IT workers are hired instead. And why are they cheap…because MOST do NOT have the education or training they claim. Only 3% of Indian IT workers can code to international standards. That is a figure that the Indian government itself came up with. Conversely 97% of US IT grads can code to international standards. Once in a company and in a manager position imported Indian workers will then almost exclusely hire Indian workers…this is a well known dirty “secret” in the IT world. Its hollowing out our middle class and impacting the overall quality of IT in the US.
Phil you dont have a clue what is going on and are relying on bigotted stereotypes anout US workers.
Like I said earlier, you are referencing an IMMIGRATION POLICY problem, not a racist discrimination problem. And don’t be such an arrogant a-hole. YOU can’t seem to focus on what the ACTUAL issues are and so you fight the wrong battles. I know. Frustrating eh?
You’re confused. You say it’s an immigration issue, but then highlight an education issue. As has been pointed out to you, there is not a shortage of qualified Americans who can fill these roles. When Asian immigrants are the ones who are structurally privileged through immigration policy to get the best paying jobs in the fastest growing sector, it’s not some sort of racial or even cultural magic that bestows the success that follows. Do they likely come from cultures which promote successful traits? Absolutely. But there are still plenty of Americans who possess those traits, and when one group has an structural advantage over the other, you get the obvious results.
You made a false claim and got called on it – that American Universities aren’t producing enough qualified tech-related grads. So you obfuscate by wandering off into senses of entitlement, Mexican lawn care, and people in basements. These are memes, not arguments.
So which of the 2 boilerplate (of late) SCOTUS responses will we hear? No standing or moot point? Roll out the clown car.
Phil, you are sadly mistaken in your propaganda view of your fellow country people and the world. China benefits if China can take ALL university spaces, scholarships, financial aid, and employment. Do you want to live in a vassal state of China? China can send 2/5 of its people here and STILL outnumber Americans here and there. Do you want to live in a Chinese Communist society? Do you even remotely understand what that means? Your self-loathing of yourself and your culture and your country is palpable. Go visit China and get back to me….
How do you think ethnically cohesive Communist Chinese are going to treat Americans if they outrank or outnumber Americans in the USA?
As just one example:
Asian plaintiffs will be found to not have standing.
Phil…as usual triggered and resorting to name calling when proven wrong and unable to understand the big pucture…tsk tsk