Judge James Ho’s Remarks Announcing a Hiring Boycott From Stanford Law School

Great remarks by Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho, particularly quoting University of Chicago President Hanna Holborn Gray: “education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think. Universities should be expected to provide the conditions within which hard thought, and therefore strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn assumptions, can flourish in an environment of the greatest freedom”

Source: https://freebeacon.com/campus/read-judge-james-hos-remarks-announcing-a-hiring-boycott-from-stanford-law-school/

Background: Did Stanford’s Tantrum Blow Up the Affirmative Action Cases? | Opinion

Students for Fair Admissions Filed Petition with the U.S Supreme Court in the lawsuit against Harvard

Here is the petition filing, and SFFA filed this press release. Reports about this update include:

Appeals Court Heard Oral Arguments of SFFA vs Harvard

Consistent with public health guidance and ongoing efforts to mitigate the risk of community transmission of COVID-19, the court conducted oral argument remotely in this case on Wednesday, September 16, 2020.



“The Department of Justice is leading its own investigation against Harvard’s admissions process, which was ongoing as of December 2019. In a separate investigation, the Justice Department found last month that Yale University also discriminates against Asian American applicants.”


SFFA Files Appeal Brief in Harvard Admissions Case





The official document of the brief is here.


Most importantly:

As you can imagine, this is just the beginning of what will likely be a long and intense legal battle. Most observers believe this case will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is possible the final resolution of our lawsuit is another two years away.

Of course, it is very expensive for a small organization like SFFA to continue this fight.

Please consider donating to help SFFA continue this battle

Excerpt from Edward Blum’s email:

We make four important points:

  • The court failed to account for the indisputable fact that Harvard consistently gives Asian-Americans lower scores on their “personal” rating than whites, African-Americans and Hispanics.
  • The court was unable to explain why Harvard did not engage in impermissible racial balancing, when the percentages of Asian-Americans and other racial groups admitted to Harvard have remained virtually unchanged for 10 years.
  • The court improperly dismissed our data and analysis showing that race-based affirmative action would be unnecessary if Harvard eliminated preferences for legacies, children of Harvard faculty and staff, and children of wealthy donors, while boosting applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds.
  • The court incorrectly found that race was only a minor factor in the admissions process, when it is, in fact, the overwhelming factor in determining who gets admitted or rejected.









我们西雅图飞来的Asian American Rights Associates (AARA) 志愿者参加了10月14日的波士顿集会之后,15日一早有三位起的比较早有幸与七点半就第一个赶到的赵宇空先生一起,在哈佛案开庭第一天排到仅有的十五个给大众的庭审旁听席位。没有料到进门的安检把所有手机平板都收去寄存不允许带入。身边仅有一张酒店账单,在背面涂鸦草草记录了一些数据。