BREAKING: Asian American Students File to Join Harvard Lawsuit and Defend Affirmative Action

Nicole Gon Ochi, Supervising Attorney of Advancing Justice - LA, speaks at a press conference on December 13, 2016. (Photo credit: Facebook / AAAJ-LA)
Nicole Gon Ochi, Supervising Attorney of Advancing Justice – LA, speaks at a press conference on December 13, 2016. (Photo credit: Facebook / AAAJ-LA)

Advancing Justice – Los Angeles (AAAJ-LA) held a press conference moments ago to announce that lawyers with the group will represent two Asian American & Pacific Islander (AAPI) high school students who wish to present their support of race-conscious affirmative action admission before the Supreme Court if and when the justices hear arguments next year about an anti-affirmative action lawsuit filed against the school by Edward Blum, the architect behind Abigail Fisher’s earlier failed attempts to dismantle affirmative action before the Court.

The two AAPI high school students represented by AAAJ-LA are current applicants to Harvard University, and both believe that race-conscious affirmative action is beneficial; AAAJ-LA filed paperwork yesterday to help the students join an existing group of diverse students who will have “amicus plus” status to present their support for affirmative action in a pending anti-affirmative action case, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.

In the Students for Fair Admissions case, lobbyist Edward Blum specifically recruited disgruntled Asian American students to serve as the next Abigail Fisher, in hopes of weaponizing a stereotyped, Model Minority Myth narrative of Asian Americans against other students of colour. Blum’s lawsuit alleging bias at Harvard was ultimately consolidated around the case of a still-unnamed Chinese American woman.

“Asian Americans are being exploited, and not to the Asian American community’s benefit,” said Jay Chen, a Harvard Alumnus and Mt. San Antonio College Trustee, at today’s press conference.

“We’ve seen increasing efforts by the Right-wing to use Asian Americans as a wedge to dismantle affirmative action,” said Betty Hung, Policy Director of AAAJ-LA, noting Blum’s history of organizing other failed legal assaults on affirmative action policies such as with Fisher. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled against Fisher in her case against the University of Texas. (Disclosure: Last year, this blog joined 160 national Asian American organizations in an amicus brief filed in support of affirmative action in regards to the Fisher case.)

As has been previously outlined in numerous writings on this blog, race-conscious affirmative action refers to several policies to address campus diversity in college admissions, including the narrow and limited consideration of race as a ‘factor of a factor‘. Hung, a Harvard alumnus and a beneficiary of affirmative action, noted that affirmative action has been crucial for increasing classroom diversity and higher education access to the benefit of students of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, including for Asian American and Pacific Islander students.

Studies have shown that classroom diversity positively impacts student learning, problem-solving, racial tolerance, and self-esteem. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education, and the Department of Education has dismissed separate complaints filed by a coalition of predominantly Chinese American groups against Harvard and other Ivy League schools alleging bias in their affirmative action practices. In contrast to the efforts of those anti-affirmative action activists, surveys of the Asian American community routinely show that more than two-thirds of Asian Americans support race-conscious affirmative action in colleges and universities.

“In the days since the election, there has been an escalation of racism and hate incidents targeting non-whites, including our community,” said Karin Wang, Vice President of Programs and Communications at AAAJ-LA in an interview with Reappropriate. “Asian American churches have been defaced with swatiskas. Asian Americans have been physically assaulted and told to “go back to your country”. Threatening notes have been left on cars or homes. The importance of race and embracing racial diversity has never been more urgent. College campuses are often one of the most racially diverse places that people experience in their lifetimes and our current political reality argues for the need to embrace diversity, not reject it.”

“It’s important for everybody to have diversity in the classroom,” said Nicole Gon Ochi, Supervising Attorney with AAAJ-LA, at today’s press event. She went on to explain that AAAJ-LA filed a motion yesterday to help the two AAPI high school students join a diverse group of fourteen Black, Latinx and Asian American Harvard students who have already received special “amicus plus” status to present evidence before the Court on how affirmative action at Harvard has positively impacted them. If the motion is approved, the two AAPI high school students would join the group of “amicus plus” students as the group’s only AAPIs who are also currently Harvard applicants. Altogether, these brave “amicus plus” students are needed to ensure that the Supreme Court hears the voices of those who are most directly impacted by affirmative action policies at Harvard and other schools — namely, students.

One of the two AAPI students hoping to receive “amicus plus” status in the case is 17-year-old Jason Fong, whose compelling writing on a variety of racial justice topics enjoys a permanent position in my weekly reading list. Last year, Fong started the wildly popular trending hashtag #MyAsianAmericanStory, which curated the experiences of Asian Americans on Twitter to discuss issues of racial justice as they related to the 2016 presidential election.

A high school senior, Fong recently submitted his application to Harvard for the 2018 academic year. When asked about his decision to file a motion for “amicus plus” status in the anti-affirmative action lawsuit against the school, Fong reflected on the lessons he learned while living in California during the height of the SCA-5 debate, when Asian American Californians launched a vehement grassroots campaign to stop a state bill that would have reinstituted race-conscious affirmative action at the state’s public universities. The absence of affirmative action has dramatically reduced racial diversity at UC schools.

“I was shocked by the misinformation about affirmative action in our community during the SCA-5 debate,” said Fong. “Our community needs to reflect upon our shared identity as Asian Americans, especially in light of recent lawsuits by a few disappointed Chinese Americans who blame race-conscious admissions programs for their failure to gain admission to their dream schools.”

While Fong hopes to be accepted to Harvard so that he might hear lectures from the legendary Dr. Cornel West and immerse himself in the campus’ tradition of student activism, Fong says that he is prepared to receive a rejection from the highly elite institution, which currently accepts less than 5% of its applicants. 95% of applicants, Fong noted, are not accepted to the school, including many highly talented student artists, athletes and academics.

Meanwhile, Fong noted that Harvard — like most Ivy League schools — routinely accepts many Asian American students; last year, 22% of admitted freshmen at Harvard were Asian American. Fong argued that to attack policies that help create a positive, diverse, and inclusive learning environment for these and all other Harvard students is counter-productive. After all, Asian Americans have historically benefited from affirmative action programs in higher education. Among those beneficiaries are Fong’s father, David Fong, who came to America as a first-generation low-income immigrant college student and who was also invited to share his experiences at today’s press conference.

“If we really want to confront discrimination, we should be working to promote programs like affirmative action that work for inclusivity,” said Jason Fong.

“None of us are here without help. None of us can say that we are the products of individual effort. We can’t forget that we are all products of history and social activism. We are here because people fought for us to be here. We are here because people took to the streets and forged changes in immigration and social policy. We are here because of programs like affirmative action.”

To view full video of today’s press conference, go here.

Did you like this post? Please support Reappropriate on Patreon!
  • affirmative action is racism. I have no idea why these asian americans would defend such a policy

  • MelaninManson

    Affirmative action is not, nor has it ever been, racism. It is at worst a meager, insufficient method to both redress racism and promote cosmopolitanism.

    To consider affirmative action racism is to betray one’s ignorance of affirmative action.

  • trer24

    Egalitarian college admissions only work when the society itself is egalitarian. Since we (United States) are nowhere near an egalitarian society, programs like affirmative action are needed. You prefer a 1950s era United States? I sure don’t. Let’s move forward, not backwards.

  • Sure let’s fix racism with racism

  • Caeser, do you plan to offer any supporting argument for your blanket statement that “affirmative action is racism”? Simply restating your opinion on this matter as if this makes it fact does not provide much room for further discussion.

  • treating certain races as more meritorious and others (such as asians) as less meritorious of college admission or job placement or any other position is the definition of racism

  • MelaninManson

    Caeser, you’re wrong about both the form and substance of affirmative action. Affirmative action does not treat certain races as more or less meritorious of education or employment.

    Frankly, Asian American are not harmed in any sense by affirmative action; as the original post above makes clear, Asian Americans are helped by affirmative action far more than is widely recognized.

    Simply put, common perspectives on academic merit that conform to public indifference toward segregated communities and poorly funded urban and rural K-12 schools do not allow America to develop the human capital required to meet this century’s challenges. We simply cannot afford to leave Blacks and Cambodians and Puerto Ricans and Filipinos behind so that wealthy, privileged Whites and Chinese may respond to the global economy with a false bravado and unearned elitism.

    Those who respond to the admissions processes at selective American colleges and universities as if they somehow belong in attendance at those schools should be willing to compete with underrepresented minorities on the collegiate level. Anti-affirmative action rhetoric always strikes me as pleas to make the college experience easier for those already privileged enough to attend.

    Caesar, affirmative action makes it more possible that people will compete with one another and learn from that competition. The assumption that affirmative action treats anyone as more or less meritorious based on their race betrays a significant knowledge deficit about affirmative action.

  • You keep using the word merit. I do not think you have looked up its definition in the dictionary

  • Caesar, I would love for you to add something more substantive in response to Melanin. He has outlined many thoughtful points that deserve better discussion than this.

  • pzed

    I could almost understand affirmative action as redress for African Americans who can definitively trace their ancestry back to slavery. But absolutely not for Hispanics and new immigrants from Africa or elsewhere. And if you want to go the redress route, then Asians, Chinese and Japanese specifically that can trace their ancestry to any time prior to the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act and internment, should get the bulk of any benefit to Asians because of their history in the US. But I’m guessing you disagree. I’m guessing you’d prefer fewer Asians, and specifically fewer East Asians get any sort of benefit for access to elite educational institutions because they overrepresent their population. The editors of this blog have picked their side in this fight and it’s not on the side of Asians.

  • bigWOWO


    The problem is that everyone has an ancestor with a grievance that is legit. Hispanics had their land stolen from them, as did American Indians. Many immigrants from Africa have endured a painful legacy of colonization. Even many White people in the U.S. have ancestors who were African American slaves. There is no one who doesn’t have a historical grievance. You and I both know that Asians face discrimination in college admissions. As to why the Far Left chose to side against Asians, well, that’s a whole different discussion, but yes, you and I both agree that it seems they have picked a side, and it’s not on the side of Asians, who face plenty of discrimination.

    I’ve made the argument before, and I’ll make it again: Affirmative action hurts everyone, but it hurts African Americans the most. It hurts them the most because most of its staunchest proponents see it as a permanent bonus system for race, a permanent system where certain races are preferred over others. Caesar Merlin says it most clearly above when he talks about the definition of “merit.” “Black” is not a form of merit, the same way “Asian” is not a form of merit. The faster we get away from this racist notion that race is a form of merit, the faster we can get working on solving real problems of racism. Identity politics is fine when practiced in moderation. Right now, it’s gone too far.

  • Soul_Survivor

    The 2 Asian-American students are being used by the AAAJ-LA and Democrat lobbyists, attempting to use Asian-American students to drive a wedge between Asian-American political interests.

    Also, the author is ignorant of how affirmative action works against Asian-Americans and why Asian-Americans lose out (it’s because they’re an easy target). I suggest she read:

    When Proportionality Equals Diversity: Asian Americans and Affirmative Action, 23 ASIAN AM. L.J. 99, 114 (2016).

    Asian Americans: Identity and the Stance on Affirmative Action, 23 Asian Am. J.J. 145 (2016).

    From Bakke to Grutter and Beyond: Asian Americans and Diversity in America, 9 TEX. J. C.L. & C.R. 129 (2004).

  • pzed

    bigWOWO, we definitely agree more than disagree, but I don’t think everyone has a legit grievance. Anyone that didn’t have ancestors living here during the bad times “deserves” nothing. I don’t care if you’re from Africa, Latin America, Asia or the Middle East/North Africa (new racial category might be added for them apparently). Their ancestors weren’t discriminated against by the government here, so they should get no benefits during a redress whatsoever. And that redress should come at the expense of whites whose ancestors were benefactors of discrimination. It should not come at the expense of Asians of any sort or even whites who came after slavery, etc.

    If some African immigrants say, “well my ancestors were enslaved outside the US,” I’d say that’s terrible, but the US owes you nothing.

  • Soul_Survivor

    No, no, no, no, no!

    Please do some research before spreading lies. Affirmative action is extremely harmful to certain Asian-Americans. Especially Chinese-Americans, in a nation that has a history of heavily discriminating against Chinese-Americans.

    And it’s also harmful to certain African-American and Hispanic-American students due to mismatched schools.

    Stop spreading misinformation. Please do some research.

    When Proportionality Equals Diversity: Asian Americans and Affirmative Action, 23 ASIAN AM. L.J. 99, 114 (2016).

    Asian Americans: Identity and the Stance on Affirmative Action, 23 Asian Am. J.J. 145, 148 (2016).

    From Bakke to Grutter and Beyond: Asian Americans and Diversity in America, 9 TEX. J. C.L. & C.R. 129, 130 (2004).

  • MelaninManson

    Mismatch theory has been repeatedly debunked, Soul_Survivor. It’s simply not an accurate depiction of Black and Latinx experiences in selective colleges and universities.

    Further, affirmative action has never harmed Asian Americans. The notion that Asian Americans are harmed by affirmative action presupposes that Asian Americans would naturally matriculate into the most selective colleges and universities if other admissions criteria outside of standardized test scores were not used.

    This requires a belief in the model minority myth that is not reasonable. The only lie in this conversation involves the idea that Asian Americans are harmed by affirmative action. That position has always been false.

  • MelaninManson

    BigWOWO, this has always been a poor argument. Affirmative action is not about permanent bonus points for race. At best, it was designed to offer meager response to the overt harm imposed by American law and custom on people of color and women. In practice, affirmative action responds to the clear demand for diverse perspectives in professional employment and higher education.

    No one believes that race is a form of merit in affirmative action debates more than Asian American affirmative action opponents like yourself and Pzed. Both of you operate with the false belief that affirmative action robs Asian Americans of educational opportunity, without evidence. You assume that, generally speaking, Asian American students deserve to join selective colleges and universities more than students from other groups, especially Black students.

    You use Asian American standardized test score averages to support these views, as if a person’s ability to excel in higher education can be easily quantified. Black Americans are not harmed by affirmative action. Asian Americans are not harmed by affirmative action. The only people who find harm when affirmative action is used for admissions purposes are those who would prefer that selective colleges and universities and professional employment opportunities selected and hired fewer Black Americans.

  • MelaninManson

    The idea that the author and editor of this blog is “not on the side of Asians” is ludicrous and foolish. What’s clear is that people who actually work in favor of Asian Americans don’t waste time on issues where Asian Americans are not being harmed.

    Affirmative action does not harm Asian Americans, Pzed. No one credible wastes their time opposing affirmative action in Asian America because that’s simply not where direct harm against Asian Americans can be observed.

  • I would invite you to read the very same papers you cite. Specifically, I invite you to re-read Kelsey Inouye’s “Asian Americans: Identity and the Stance on Affirmative Action” piece, which specifically discusses how support of (as well as opposition to) affirmative action reflects the diversity of racial and political identity formation and framing within the AAPI community. Specifically, those who support affirmative action adopt a community-based approach to racial justice — one that acknowledges the diversity of the AAPI experience and that seeks to remove obstacles to higher education for all members of the community. Quoting Inouye:

    Asian Americans who adopt the community-based position support affirmative action by recognizing the diversity among Asian Americans and believing that all members of the community should receive rights and benefits. This does not mean that literally all members will receive rights-that, unfortunately, is not realistic. Instead, all members of the Asian community should be able to have the opportunity to receive rights. Those who take the community-based position support racial preferences because they provide a greater chance for students of Southeast Asian backgrounds to gain admissions not just the stereotypically successful Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans.

    In contrast, those who prescribe to the face-value perspective focus on
    the “total gains of the group,” meaning that victories for some members of
    the community are victories for the community as a whole.” In other
    words, Chinese and Taiwanese Americans’ access to prestigious
    universities and influential positions is a success for the entire Asian
    American community, including those members who still struggle to
    complete a high school education and make rent. Under Ikegami ‘s theory,
    the AALF’s amicus briefs take the face-value position, while the
    AALDEF’s argument for diversity and criticism of the “model minority”
    embodies the community-based theory. Both groups aim to protect Asian
    American civil rights, but disagree on how to achieve that protection.”‘

    The important point here is Inouye’s assertion that, essentially, both groups have the interests of Asian Americans in mind, but disagree on the particulars of both what constitute affirmative action and what constitute “Asian & Pacific Islander America.” Soul, your antagonistic mischaracterization of those who disagree with you on this topic as liars suggests a failure to understand this complexity; that is made all the more ironic by the fact that this complexity is gamely laid out in one of your cited papers.

    Furthermore, Inouye offers a frank discussion of the motivations of those who oppose affirmative action. Inouye suggests that those who oppose affirmative action frame equality through a “self-” based framing; essentially that “increasing my privilege elevates those less privileged AAPIs around me.” This occurs in part through the buy-in by some AAPIs into a master narrative of colourblind meritocracy combined with model minority myth stereotypes of Asian Americans as unilaterally smarter and more qualified than applicants of other races. Further, Inouye posits that these outlooks, combined with a broad misunderstanding of the nuances of affirmative action, results in political opposition to the policies by certain Asian Americans.

    I can personally attest to this phenomenon. I have watched attendees at a workshop conducted at an Asian American conference argue against affirmative action on the basis of wanting to maximize admission chances for their own children, but then find their opinions on affirmative action shift when they participated in a workshop wherein holistic review was modeled. Indeed, I watched within the span of a few hours how opinions on affirmative action shifted from opposition to support once opponents were invited to think more holistically about admission policies, affirmative action, and the community as a diverse whole. To paraphrase Inouye, Asian Americans with a relatively narrow view on the AAPI community and who don’t understand affirmative action (and who mistakenly conflate it with unconstitutional negative action) tend to oppose it, while those with a broader definition of Asian & Pacific Islander America and with a deeper understanding of affirmative action tend to support it. See below (emphasis added):

    Each of these theories can help us understand the conflicting opinions towards affirmative action among Asian Americans. Recognizing the context in which identities evolve is key in predicting how individuals will
    view racial preferences and social problems. What makes the Asian American identity and therefore political opinion so difficult is the complexity of the narrative in which Asians are brought up. They are referred to as the model minority but not as model Americans, emphasizing the role of “foreigner” -an “othering” that positions Asian Americans as apart from the rest of the nation. For some, this narrative supports a worldview in which protecting Asian self-interest might make more sense than acting in solidarity with other American minorities. Research indicates that many Asian Americans feel threatened by both whites and other minorities because Asians receive neither the benefits of being white nor the benefits of being a subordinate minority for the purpose of school admissions. At the same time, the history of racism and marginalization faced by Asian Americans feeds a sense of solidarity with other groups, and evidence suggests that Asian Americans with a deeper knowledge of affirmative action’s history are more likely to support it.

    It does a disservice to Inouye’s writing to cite it as evidence that “affirmative action is extremely harmful to certain Asian-Americans,” as this conclusion is directly at odds with Inouye’s own thesis. Inouye essential argues that those in favour of affirmative action within the AAPI community adopt this perspective out of a broader, more community (rather than self-interest based) definition of “Asian & Pacific Islander America”, and that this perspective not only exemplifies the political diversity of the AAPI community but also has legal and historical merit.

    I would strongly urge you to read the articles you cite before you cite them, Soul; sometimes, they only serve to demonstrate that you did not read them.


    The flaw in Chu’s argument is that they write to criticize the Proportionate Ideal as a de facto quota and then to in turn argue that therefore negative and affirmative action are largely the same and both harmful because both rely on the philosophy Proportionate Ideal. Yet Chu’s argument is basically circular — “Proportionate Ideal is harmful and discriminatory therefore negative action and affirmative action are harmful and discriminatory therefore Proportionate Ideal is harmful and discriminatory.” Chu’s writing also fails to reflect the reality of how affirmative action is actually practiced; meanwhile Chu provides a cavalier and superficial treatment of existing counterarguments to their position such as the ethnic diversity of the AAPI community.

    One thing I can agree with Chu on is the need for AAPIs to take ownership of our own political opinion on affirmative action, and to enter into our support of the policy with awareness and education.

    Whether Asian Americans choose to support or reject affirmative action, it is absolutely crucial that our community maintains ultimate control over our narrative.

    To that end, blindly supporting (non-AAPI) Rightwing efforts to weaponize Asian Americans as “model victims” of race-conscious affirmative action by repetition of jingoistic anti-affirmative action battlecries sabotages what is, and should be, an AAPI-driven discussion about where our community might stand on these complicated policies and ultimately about AAPI’s positionality within the American racial and political landscape.

    Characterizing the arguments of AAPIs who support affirmative action as “lies” betrays the importance of this debate for AAPIs. Soul, I invite you to please take your own advice: please do some research.


    I don’t really plan to participate further in this thread. Instead, I’d invite you to engage further with Melanin, who has done a lot of research on why Sanders’ Mismatch Theory is very, very wrong, widely criticized, non-scientific, and widely criticized by Sanders’ peers in the field.

  • Soul_Survivor

    Real academics will provide proper sources that explore BOTH SIDES of the argument. As someone who doesn’t believe in misleading people and provide false information aka Trump (and the author here has a habit of doing), I provide 3 academic sources that explore both sides (within their articles).

    Inouye’s article is recent and has a great discussion on Backlash to Asian American Criticism of Affirmative Action.

    Just because it intelligently discusses both sides doesn’t mean I didn’t read the article. It just means I don’t believe in Trump-ing readers as you do.

  • You cited all three articles as ‘evidence’ for these blanket statements:

    Affirmative action is extremely harmful to certain Asian-Americans. Especially Chinese-Americans, in a nation that has a history of heavily discriminating against Chinese-Americans.

    And it’s also harmful to certain African-American and Hispanic-American students due to mismatched schools.

    None of these articles conclude as you do, and few are even interested in arguing the point about whether affirmative action objectively is or isn’t harmful. At least one article actually argues counter to the statement for which it is cited. Yet you nonetheless used all three articles as reference for your assertion that affirmative action categorically harms Asian Americans. It is highly misleading to cite these articles in the way that you did as if they provide evidence for your thesis when they do not, and to do so violates all sorts of academic ‘best practices’ for writing and debate.

    At best, you did not understand the theses of the articles you cited, none of which would cosign your conclusion that those who support affirmative action are liars or misinformed. This may be understandable because at least two of three were offering an argument much more complicated than “affirmative action is bad for Asian Americans”; it’s possible that confirmation bias led you to gloss over the complexities of the writers’ nuanced theses.

    At worst, you did not read much more than the abstract (as each abstract gives each article the appearance of arguing your point), and that you cited the articles without having read them thoroughly. This is highly problematic.

    I suggest that next time you patronizingly ask that someone do research, you first do some research for yourself. I suggest that you comment in the future with more thoughtfulness and care. For example, next time if you want to cite another writer’s work, that you exercise best writing practices for citations. If you are citing an article that does not conclude the same point as yours, you should not cite them as if they are in agreement with you and instead provide some context as to which specific part of their writing you are referencing. Also, if you plan to continue commenting here, I further invite you to review the comment policies of this site (scroll to the bottom of this page).

    I again also invite you to engage Melanin for a discussion on the flaws of Mismatch.

  • Soul_Survivor

    I never stated that those references directly supported my first statement

    I stated that your readers needed to read them because you confuse the issues and fail to show how Asian-Americans lost out in the affirmative-action debate. You fail to represent both sides of the issues in a fair manner to get your specific followers riled up. It’s very Donald Trump-esque.

    Quoting random selected passages while ignoring others to show you’ve read the argument and understand it is also very Trump-esque. It only exacerbates the fact that you’re trying to pull a Donald Trump over your readers. You know why I didn’t take out selected quotes out of those articles that agree with me but only provided the links? Because that would be misrepresenting a large article that covers many grounds. The titles and citations are there if people want to read them, I’m not going to misrepresent arguments.

    Look, I can randomly take out quotes too: “The reluctance to acknowledge and give voice to this portion of our community’s narrative does a great disservice to many among us. Why should, any other community, whether they be white or minority recognize these individuals and their accomplishments when we fail to do so ourselves? ”

    “Given their apparent diligence, Asian students often figure as unfair targets of affirmative action because of their race.”

    “Unfortunately, current legal scholarship does not sufficiently address the actual ramifications of affirmative action on Asian Americans. Rather than objectively examining the effects of affirmative action, commentators have focused almost exclusively on preventing the use of the Asian American narrative to further conservative interests. The general lack of attention to Asian interests and concerns from “liberals” has further widened this gap in scholarship.”

    “Surprisingly, the “success” of Asian Americans may partly be explained by discrimination itself. Given the stereotypes of Asians as successful students, 64Link to the text of the note schools and society more generally may punish Asian Americans who fail to meet expectations. As a result, both individuals and the community in the aggregate may not only work harder to achieve academic success but may also be driven towards certain fields of study and occupations. 65Link to the text of the note Nonetheless, due to this underlying premise, race-based affirmative action programs ultimately have the de facto goal of proportionate representation. Problematically, basing affirmative action programs on the Proportionate Ideal, as discussed later, has had the unintended effect of devaluing 66Link to the text of the note Asian Americans in American society, which in turn has worked to constrain their representation in higher education.”

    Oh look at me. I wrote a long post with quotes while confusing the issues for readers. Then I told the person who I keep replying to to not reply to me. Doesn’t that make me special?

    You’re too much. You should be appointed to Trump’s cabinet, you’d fit in well.

  • Soul_Survivor

    Blanket statements like “mismatch theory has been repeatedly debunked” are misleading and a misrepresentation. I could just as easily say “theories against mismatch theories have been repeatedly debunked.” I could also provide sources that support mismatch theory.

    But, I’m not crazy enough to make blanket statements. Nor, do I just neglect one entire side of the argument because it doesn’t support mine.

    Try again. Without misleading readers.

  • Guest

    Get ’em, Jenn : )

  • … you have cited one of the chief proponents of Mismatch Theory (Gail Heriot), and a listing of amicus briefs filed in Fisher 2. One would assume Heriot would support a theory she has had a strong hand in shaping. The second, being merely a listing of filings, lacks any specificity as to what you are referencing.

    Mismatch Theory has been widely reviewed, and judged to be empirically flawed, by most objective researchers who have considered the Theory (and people who are not Richard Sander or Gail Heriot). Throw a rock into the pond of legal writing on the Mismatch Theory subject, and you are certain to hit a piece of writing describing its flaws — from Sanders’ math, to the failure of other investigators to replicate his calculations, to legal scholars who refute his reasoning.

    There are entire issues of law review journals dedicated to presenting reasons why Mismatch Theory is flawed.

    I have exactly one minute before I need to leave, so I can’t find those law review issues for you at the moment. I trust Melanin will provide them for you before the end of the night, but until that time, I suggest you read… uhm, any of those many articles.

    There are few times when you can say that almost an entire field of academia has debunked a particular theory. The vast majority of scientists refute the claims of climate change denialists. Similarly, the vast majority of law school admissions researchers refute Mismatch as a flawed and baseless theory by almost any conceivable facet.

  • I never stated that those references directly supported my first statement. I stated that your readers needed to read them because you confuse the issues and fail to show how Asian-Americans lost out in the affirmative-action debate.

    You have repeatedly made the blanket statement that affirmative action “harms” Asian Americans, and then referenced three articles as citations. Indeed, in the comment above, you make it quite clear that you believe that your references demonstrate “how Asian-Americans lost out in the affirmative-action debate.”

    Yet, none empirically demonstrates that affirmative action harms Asian Americans, nor do they show that the debate/disagreement on affirmative action is innately harmful to Asian Americans; indeed, both Chu and Inouye actually argue the opposite — that a considered and reasoned debate on the subject is valuable to Asian Americans to help our community navigate the complexities of our place in Americas racial landscape and to develop a stronger political worldview as a community.

    Either 1) you initially believed those articles to be references that wholly support your claims and are now backpedaling when called out, or 2) you do not quite grasp how citations work. Both suggest an un-rigorous approach to academic discussion and debate, and again suggest you should perhaps do a little more research yourself before demanding it of others.