In 2018, the trial for the case of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. the President and Fellows of Harvard College took place. This case was brought by plaintiff Edward Blum, the president and founder of SFFA, an anti-affirmative action group that files lawsuits on behalf of students rejected from competitive universities, who claimed that Harvard College was unfairly discriminating against Asian-Americans in its college admissions process by granting admission to students of other ethnicities even though they had lower grades and test scores. On October 1, a federal judge sided with the college, ruling that there was no explicit bias against Asian-Americans in Harvard’s admission process. The verdict is anything but a setback for diversity in American colleges and universities.
On the surface, it seems as though Edward Blum, a white man, has no stake in this case. However, if the judge were to have ruled in favor of Blum and SFFA, the main beneficiaries of the ruling would have, in fact, been white Americans, who, as a whole, have long enjoyed many more advantages than minority groups. A “win” in this case for Asian-Americans would mean the continuation of systems that limit minorities’ access to higher education.
Blum’s motives were shown explicitly in Fisher v. University of Texas, a 2016 Supreme Court case bankrolled by Blum. During the trial, Blum and his team argued on behalf of Abigail Fisher, a white female, claiming that she was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin because she was white. Blum’s team claimed that Fisher was passed over in favor of black and Latino students with lower grades and test scores. Blum, who is a fervent opponent of affirmative action, was disappointed with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which allows schools to be race-conscious when considering applications. Because of this “disappointing” outcome, Blum decided to try his case again, but this time arguing on behalf of Asian-Americans. Clearly, Blum used the Asian-American community as a pawn in hopes of advancing his agenda.
So, where do we go from here? Although Harvard won the case, the courts were adamant that the college, and other establishments like it, are not in the clear. Blum already filed an appeal on October 4, and the case seems destined for the Supreme Court. Admission data from Harvard reveals that since the 1990s the percentage of Asian-Americans in incoming classes has remained relatively stable even though the percentage of Asian-Americans in the applicant pool has more than doubled. This may suggest that the college has a quota, something that both Edward Blum and his affirmative-action opponents agree is not a good thing.
People should not be chosen for a school or a job simply because of their race, but their race should be considered as a circumstance when looking at their qualifications. For example, if a Latino student was applying to a certain college, he should not be granted admission just because the college needed a certain amount of Latinx students to maintain a diversity quota. Instead, his ethnicity and how it has affected his life should be taken into consideration when evaluating the merit of his application. This is the difference between race-based and race-conscious admission. Harvard is in a unique position to change the landscape of American college admissions. Any major modification it makes to its admissions policies will set an example for other colleges and universities.
This case has given Asian- Americans a unique opportunity. We have a choice to make. We can sit back and let people like Edward Blum do their best to keep diversity out of our colleges and universities, or we can refuse to be a political pawn in the fight against affirmative action. One could do worse than snagging a spot at a place like Harvard, but must such things be attained by stepping on the heads of fellow students?
