It is a historical day for the fight against Affirmative Action. This is not about which ethic group or person “wins” or “loses”. It is about the common good of what is right vs. wrong.
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”
Background: Did Stanford’s Tantrum Blow Up the Affirmative Action Cases? | Opinion
Here is the petition filing, and SFFA filed this press release. Reports about this update include:
We expect the case will be brought to the Supreme Court of the United States in the near future.
Reports about the ruling:
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.”
The official document of the brief is here.
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.
10月1日波士顿联邦法院法官Allison D. Burroughs做出了对SFFA不利的裁决。这个发展并不意外，SFFA如大家预期的一样在10月4日向第一巡回法院发出了Notice of Appeal