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。





媒体对亚裔起诉哈佛歧视案的Opinion Pieces

美国媒体常刊登一类称为Opinion Pieces的文章(简写为Opinion,或Op-ed),撰稿人通常是该领域的专家,未必是该媒体正式员工,内容代表作者个人观点。这类文章不承诺中立客观,几乎都比新闻报道语气更强烈。背景详见:

在8月30日司法部发表Statement of Interest支持SFFA代表亚裔起诉哈佛歧视之后,感谢杨女士搜集了一些这类文章供大家参考。我们汇集整理,希望帮助大家更深刻了解这个诉讼的背景和意义,更多角度地了解这起诉讼。其中一些支持哈佛的文章其评论区也一边倒支持亚裔,这是一个很值得注意的现象。

Opinion pieces critical to Harvard

Mike Gonzalez的一系列文章




Opinion pieces critical to SFFA



今天8月30日川普的司法部发表正式声明(Statement of Interest)支持SFFA代表亚裔起诉哈佛,对十月份的联邦法官和后续很可能牵涉的巡回法院法官和最高法院都形成很大压力。

作为对比,奥巴马的司法部和教育部多次发表guidance逼迫大学录取中实行种族配额,并间接把种族配额制推进到公司的招聘和升职中。这次声明是大家用选票和捐款取得突破的铁证, “elections have consequences”。我们每个人目前最有效而可操作的就是加入SFFA的会员,成为在十月十五日庭审开始之前扩大支持者人数的铁证。请注意夫妻双方分别加入!链接:



  1. 一针见血地批驳了所谓“哈佛是私校,所以有权以任何方式录取“的误解。原文——“As a recipient of taxpayer dollars, Harvard has a responsibility to conduct its admissions policy without racial discrimination by using meaningful admissions criteria that meet lawful requirements. ”
  2. 解释了司法部介入此案的法理,并且为司法部长期支持我们反AA做出了承诺。原文——“The Department of Justice has the responsibility to protect the civil rights of the American people. This case is significant because the admissions policies at our colleges and universities are important and must be conducted lawfully.”今后如果司法部对此案和类似诉讼不作为,司法部自己将面对法律诉讼。
  3. 声明也痛击了最近芝加哥大学等一些学校录取标准中放弃SAT分数这样消除客观标准、用主观因素制造种族配额的手段。这为司法部今后追求平等、打击这样卑劣操作设下了伏笔,也是对一些持观望态度学校和公司的警告Harvard’s admissions process takes many things into consideration, among them a ‘personal rating’. The Department of Justice statement says this is based on ‘subjective factors’ and could amount to discrimination
  4. 指出与此案同时,司法部2017年开始了基于AACE领导的complaint对哈佛进行调查,这是打开如果法官对此案判决不利就由司法部直接介入的门。The Department opened a Title VI investigation into Harvard’s admissions process in 2017 based upon a complaint filed by more than 60 Asian-American organizations.
  5. 司法部声明大量引用了SFFA六月十五日的motion.尤其是关于哈佛内部报告得出录取中亚裔被主观性”likability”打分压制却对此报告毫无作为的铁证。Finally, the Justice Department has determined that Harvard—while using race to make admissions decisions for more than 45 years—has never seriously considered alternative, race-neutral ways to compile a diverse student body, which it is required to do under existing law. 这从侧面说明政治中的细节非常重要,SFFA六月份的声明为今天司法部的声明奠定了基础。同理,我们关注此案的亚裔也要明白这样日积月累才能有实效的道理。
  6. 指出哈佛自己承认用race作为录取的衡量因素,但是哈佛并未能证明他们使用race的过程中未形成种族歧视,因此原告起诉成立。Harvard admits that it uses race to decide whether to admit certain applicants to the college. Under Supreme Court precedent, Harvard must demonstrate that its use of race does not result in illegal discrimination. Harvard has failed to do so, and the Department filed a Statement of Interest that argues the plaintiffs should be allowed to proceed to a trial.
  7. 指出哈佛用了”personal rating”这个黑箱操作手段,并且承认他们系统性地给亚裔打低分。Harvard admits that, on average, it scores Asian-American applicants lower on this “personal rating” than applicants of other races.
  8. 指出充足证据证明哈佛一直监测并操纵录取中的种族配额,有很清楚的犯罪证据。Substantial evidence also demonstrates that Harvard admissions officers and committees consistently monitor and manipulate the racial makeup of incoming classes, which has resulted in stable racial demographics in Harvard’s admitted classes from year to year. The Supreme Court has called such attempts to “racially balance” the makeup of a student body “patently unconstitutional.”
  9. 司法部的声明时间点也很有韵味。按照传统,九月四号劳动节之后是今年中期选举正式启动冲刺阶段的日子。为了能让Judge Kavanaugh在十月一号最高法院新term之前上任,能参与所有新任期的诉讼,共和党已经安排九月四号当天,参议院司法委员会开始Kavanaugh的任命听证,将开始媒体和两党之间各种炮轰。选在今天发布这个声明,算是避开了各种抓眼球大新闻的眼球压力。美国媒体的另一个传统是:星期五尤其星期五下午是发表各种希望尽量少选民了解消息的时间点,因为周末尤其是长周末选民们都忙自己的小家。这个声明也避开了周五的时间点。选择周四算是有个相当不错的态度,给媒体和读者更大机会了解到这一动态。

SFFA对此声明的Press Release

Press Release报道
Edward Blum, president of SFFA said, “Students for Fair Admissions is gratified that, after careful analysis of the evidence submitted in this case, the US Department of Justice has concluded Harvard’s admissions policies are in violation of our nation’s civil rights laws.”
Blum added, “We look forward to having the gravely troubling evidence that Harvard continues to keep redacted disclosed to the American public in the near future.”


以下是笔者整理的各种媒体对此声明的汇总,排列顺序一定程度是笔者个人希望强调的,但并不严格,更谈不上准确。还将随时更新。希望大家点击阅读更多细节,是对好报道的支持,也可以选择您最喜欢的内容单独宣传转发。哪些网站允许评论,哪些封掉讨论区,本身也给大家提供了他们各自fake news value的一定线索。尤其呼吁积极参与可以在线讨论的文章。谢谢!

  1. The Harvard Crimson。哈佛本科学生自己的日报,此前的报道也很深刻。这是此案报道中我最喜欢感觉最值得关注的资源,里面的comments格外耐人寻味。Justice Department Says Harvard Illegally Discriminates Against Asian American Applicants 有评论区
  2. Daily Mail.远比美国主流媒体有职业操守的英国“八卦小报”,常有美国主流媒体故意不说的细节 Justice Department criticizes Harvard’s admissions practices in affirmative action case alleging bias against Asian Americans 有评论区
  3. 华尔街日报:Justice Department Says Harvard Hurts Asian Americans’ Admissions Prospects With ‘Personal Rating’ 有评论区
  4. Bloomberg: Harvard Discrimination Lawsuit Wins Justice Department Support
  5. 路透社:U.S. argues Harvard admissions policies harm Asian-Americans
  6. Fox News: DOJ sides with Asian-American students alleging discrimination at Harvard 有评论区
  7. Yahoo Finance: Trump administration backs Asian-Americans in Harvard case 有评论区
  8. National Review: DOJ Sides with Plaintiffs Alleging Harvard Discriminates against Asians 有评论区
  9. The Hill: DOJ backs lawsuit alleging bias against Asian-Americans in Harvard admissions 有评论区
  10. BBC: US justice department criticises Harvard over ‘racial bias’
  11. Boston Globe: Harvard admissions ‘may be infected with racial bias,’ DOJ says 有评论区
  12. 卫报:Justice department sides with Asian American students in Harvard bias lawsuit
  13. Breitbart: Justice Department: Harvard Illegally Discriminates Against Asian-American Applicants 有评论区
  14. Washington Post: Justice Department criticizes Harvard admissions in case alleging bias against Asian Americans (副标题:The Trump administration’s legal brief comes as a lawsuit against the university is heading to trial.)有评论区
  16. Washington Times: Justice Department says Harvard illegally discriminated against Asian-Americans
  17. Washington Examiner: DOJ sides with student group saying Harvard University has anti-Asian-American admission policies
  18. ABC News: Trump administration backs Asian-Americans in Harvard discrimination case 有评论区
  19. CBS News: DOJ sides with Asian-American students in affirmative action suit against Harvard University
  20. NBC News: Sessions sides with Asian students who accuse Harvard of discrimination
  21. 纽约时报:Asian-American Students Suing Harvard Over Affirmative Action Win Justice Dept. Support 有评论区
  22. CNN: Justice Department sides with Asian-Americans suing Harvard over admissions policy
  23. Msnbc: 只有一段视频DOJ joins Asian-American discrimination lawsuit against Harvard


And liberal groups blasted the Justice Department.
“The Sessions Justice Department’s intervention in this case opposes constitutionally sound strategies that colleges and universities are using to expand educational opportunity for students of all backgrounds,” said Vanita Gupta, president of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “This is one more example of the administration’s contempt for efforts to build a more inclusive, just society.”



  1. 现在有反亚裔势力美化洗地说细分你是为了更好的照顾你们亚裔。然而事实是每个被普查表单列出来的亚裔族群都是被打击对象。普查表从1870年就增加了Chinese box,而这伴随的是罪恶排华法案。此后普查表又逐渐增加了Japenese box (1890), Korean, Filipino (1930) . Immigration Act of 1924 禁止了所有亚洲国家的移民。菲律宾原是美国殖民地,后来在1930s从美国独立,于是根据联邦政府限制了菲律宾移民。这些为亚裔国家单列出来的表格从来就基于对亚裔移民的恶意,用来count有多少不受欢迎的外国人,并制定相应的负面政策。
  2. 黑人在这个表格长期被列举为Negro,直到2000年才改为African Americans,所以这些大的改动是完全可行的。
  3. 最近几年一些州在州的层面搞臭名昭著的亚裔细分,其鼓吹者常用的一个诡辩理由就是“联邦人口普查表就细分亚裔,所以我们州里只是效仿联邦”。对这种无赖习气,我们是需要从联邦层面纠正的。
  4. 人口普查十年一次,错过这次就要再等至少十年。其间州的层面很多恶法都可能依赖现在这份细分亚裔的表格出台。
  5. 人口普查局隶属商业部,其中层官员有很多几十年不动的职业官僚,还有很多奥巴马时代的反亚裔官僚,但从总统向下也有很多这类官员被换掉。正像川普政府已经明确在亚裔起诉哈佛歧视亚裔的诉讼上支持我们亚裔的立场一样,我们得到宝贵的天时与人和。