The highlights, shown below, involve actions by 4 entities:
Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), Harvard,
the Department of Education (DoED), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). o Nov. 2014: Students for Fair Admissions, SFFA, headed by Ed Blum, filed a lawsuit alleging that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for considering race in admissions. The lawsuit focuses on discrimination against Asian Ams (AsAms) and is filed at the federal District Court of Boston.
o May 2015: The lawsuit entered the discovery phase. The major discoverieson the SFFA side, included but were not limited to:
(a) "personal essays, comments from alumni interviewers, & summary sheets containing comments from admissions officers" with student names left in tact, rather than redacted, and
(b) in 2013, Harvard buried an internal report from its own Office of
Institutional Research stating that Harvard's admissions methodology may be discriminating against AsAm applicants.
(c)Harvard evaluates its applicants by adding a secretive, un-scientific,
and completely subjective "personal rating" of each applicant, sometimes sight unseen, and sometimes in strong contrast with the rating of its alumni who have interviewed the same student. See the yellow bar in the graph below. Harvard called it a "whole person evaluation". It is actually a whole race evaluation - Asians are not as good as whites, blacks and Hispanics. The following graph compares AsAms to whites.
o June 15, 18: Both sides filed for "summary judgment" by the court. SFFA filed to find Harvard guilty; Harvard filed to dismiss the case. The Court has not decided yet.
o June 29, 18: DoED's Office of Civil Rights and DOJ sent a notice to all colleges that the current administration preferred a race neutral admissions approach, as was the case under the Bush administration. It reversed the Obama administration's preference of using race as one criteria of admissions.
Harvard really has no defense for its alleged discrimination against AsAms, given the huge amount evidence against it. Harvard only stated that it didn't discriminate, and its statistical experts didn't find evidence of discrimination against AsAm applicants.
Instead, it focuses its attacks on Ed Blum, the president of SFFA, a person whom Harvard attacked as the author of Fisher v. U of TX, and accused him of using AsAms as a tool to destroy affirmative action. They also attacked him for his strong feeling that race should not be considered in any US laws.
Coming Actions - Demonstration & the TRIAL
o Oct 14, 2018: This is the day before the District Court of Boston will try the
case. A DEMONSTRATION against Harvard is planned in Boston (exact
location to be announced). Hundreds, perhaps thousands of AsAms from
across the nation will be there. Join us, if you share our sense of
obligation to our future generations.
I'll be there, and shall deliver a stinging, but hopefully fair-minded speech against Harvard for its discrimination against our youngsters. I always believe in stepping up and being counted.
We are looking forstudents, who have been wrongly rejected by Harvard in earlier years, to speak out during this occasion. Harvard probably bets that such students, being of low personality, don't have the guts. I bet differently. Former "rejects" with courage pls.contact me: firstname.lastname@example.org.We'll pay your travel expenses.
o Oct 15, 2018. The trial begins.
Light At The End Of The Tunnel?
Regardless of which side will win this round, the case will likely end up at the Supreme Court in 2020. Given very strong support for us in the "Court of Public Opinion", the strong support of DOJ and DoED against Harvard, and most crucially the change in composition of the Supreme Court Justices, we are quite optimistic about the eventual outcome, especially if we win this round!