Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al

Filing 502

AMICUS BRIEF filed by Amici Curiae the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, et al. in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Rodriguez, Madeleine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC,
Plaintiff,

v.
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF
HARVARD COLLEGE (HARVARD
CORPORATION),
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-14176-ADB

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF
THE ASIAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND
AND OTHER ASIAN AMERICAN EDUCATION AND YOUTH-SERVING
ORGANIZATIONS AND HIGHER EDUCATION FACULTY IN OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ............................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 2
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 3
A.

Asian Americans Benefit From Race-Conscious Admission Programs. .............. 3
1. The Benefits of Diversity Accrue to All Students. ......................................... 4
2. There Is Substantial Diversity Within the Asian American Community. ...... 5
3. Individualized Admissions Policies Prevent Asian Americans from Being
Improperly Grouped Into A Single “Asian” Category. .................................. 7

B.

SFFA’s Arguments Do Not Advance the Goals of Asian Applicants. ................. 9
1. SFFA Conflates Negative Action and Race-Conscious Admissions............ 10
2. SFFA’s Arguments Treat Asian Americans as a Monolithic Group, Thereby
Perpetuating the “Model Minority” Myth..................................................... 11
3. SFFA’s Requested Remedy—the Elimination of Race-Conscious
Admissions—Will Mostly Benefit White Candidates, not Asian American
Candidates. .................................................................................................... 13

C.

Plaintiff and Its Amici Have Not Established Negative Action Against
Asian Americans in Harvard’s Admissions Process. .......................................... 14
1. Standardized Test Score Data at Harvard Do Not Show Negative Action
Against Asian Americans. ............................................................................ 15
2. Plaintiff’s Assumed Bias in the Personal Score is Not Supported by the
Data. …...... ................................................................................................... 19

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 20
ADDENDUM …………………………………………………………………………….…..A1

i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Fisher v. Univ. of Tex.,
136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016) ....................................................................................................... 2, 4
Grutter v. Bollinger,
539 U.S. 306 (2003) ..................................................................................................... 2, 4, 14
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist.,
No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) ..................................................................................................... 4
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke,
438 U.S. 265 (1978) ........................................................................................................... 2, 4
Smith v. University of Washington Law School,
392 F.3d 367 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 7
Statutory Authorities
Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 ........................................................ 5
Other Authorities
Sigal Alon & Marta Tienda, Diversity, Opportunity, and the Shifting Meritocracy in Higher
Education, 72 Am. Soc. Rev. 487 (2007) ............................................................................. 17
Ben Backes, Do Affirmative Action Bans Lower Minority College Enrollment and Attainment?
Evidence from Statewide Bans, 47 J. Hum. Resources 435 (2012) ...................................... 13
Joan Biskupic, Special Report: Behind U.S. Race Cases, a Little Known Recruiter, REUTERS,
Dec. 4, 2012, http://www. reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-casemakeridUSBRE8B30V220121204 ................................................................................................... 9
William G. Bowen & Derek Bok, The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of
Considering Race in College and University Admissions 16 (2d ed. 2000) ......................... 16
Department of Homeland Security, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2016 at 27-28,
available at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2016
%20Yearbook%20of%20Immigration%20Statistics.pdf ........................................................ 5
William T. Dickens & Thomas J. Kane, Racial Test Score Differences as Evidence of Reverse
Discrimination: Less Than Meets the Eye, 38 Indus. Rel. 331 (1999) ................................. 16
Mark E. Engberg & Sylvia Hurtado, Developing Pluralistic Skills and Dispositions in College:
Examining Racial/Ethnic Group Differences, 82 J. Higher Educ. 416 (2011) ....................... 4
ii

Thomas J. Espenshade, Moving Beyond Affirmative Action, The New York Times (Oct. 4,
2012), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/moving-beyondaffirmative-action.html .......................................................................................................... 17
FairTest, National Center for Fair and Open testing, “Optional List,” (Current as of Summer
2018), available at http://www.fairtest.org/university/optional............................................ 15
Claude S. Fischer et al., Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth (1996) ............. 16
V.W. Franks, Defining Promise: Optional Standardized testing Policies in American College
and University Admissions, National Association for College Admissions Counseling (Feb.
5, 2014).................................................................................................................................. 15
Patricia Gurin et al., Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on Educational
Outcomes, 72 Harv. Educ. Rev. 330 (2002)............................................................................ 4
Scott Jaschik, The Power of Race, Inside Higher Ed (Nov. 3, 2009), available at
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/03/elite ...................................................... 16
Jerry Kang, Negative Action Against Asian Americans: The Internal Instability of Dworkin’s
Defense of Affirmative Action, 31 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 1 (1996) ................................... 10
William C. Kidder, Misshaping the River: Proposition 209 and Lessons for the Fisher Case,
39 J.C. & U.L. 53 (2013)....................................................................................................... 16
William C. Kidder, Situating Asian Pacific Americans in the Law School Affirmative Action
Debate: Empirical Facts about Thernstrom’s Rhetorical Acts,
7 Asian Am. L.J. 29 (2000) ............................................................................................. 10, 13
Iosk Kim and Wooksoo Kim, Post-resettlement Challenges and Mental Health of Southeast
Asian Refugees in the United States, 10 Best Practices in Mental Health 63 (2014).............. 6
Jennifer L. Kobrin et al., Historical View of Subgroup Performance Differences on the SAT
Reasoning Test, 19 (The College Board 2007), available at
http://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/ (The College Board 2007) ................... 16
Stacey Lee and Kevin Kumashiro, A Report on the Status of Asian Americans and Pacific
Islander in Education: Beyond the “Model Minority” Stereotype, National Education
Association, at xi (2005) ............................................................................................. 5, 11, 12
Goodwin Liu, The Causation Fallacy: Bakke and the Basic Arithmetic of Selective
Admissions, 100 Mich. L. Rev. 1045 (2002) ......................................................................... 16
Stephanie Mencimer, Meet the Brains Behind the Effort to Get the Supreme Court to Rethink
Civil Rights, Mother Jones, March/April 2016,
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/edward-blum-supreme-court-affirmativeaction-civil-rights/ ................................................................................................................... 9

iii

Samuel Museus and Peter Kiang, Deconstructing the Model Minority Myth and How It
Contributes to the Invisible Minority Reality in Higher Education Research, 142 New
Directions for Inst. Res. 5 (2009) .................................................................................... 11, 12
NYU CARE, Asian Americans and the Benefits of Campus Diversity: What the Research Says
1 (2012), available at http://care.gseis.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CAREasian_am_ diversity_D4.pdf.................................................................................................... 4
J. Owens and D.S. Massey, Stereotype Threat and College Academic Performance: A Latent
Variables Approach, 40 Soc. Sci. Res. 150 (2011) ............................................................... 18
OiYan Poon et al., A Critical Review of the Model Minority Myth in Selected Literature on
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Higher Education, 86 Rev. of Educational
Research 469 (2016)............................................................................................................ 5, 9
V. Purdie-Vaughns, Social Identity Contingencies: How Diversity Cues Signal Threat or
Safety for African Americans in Mainstream Institutions, 94 J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 615
(2008) .................................................................................................................................... 18
Jay Rosner, Disparate Outcomes by Design: University Admissions Test, 12 Berkeley La Raza
L.J. 377 (2001) ...................................................................................................................... 17
Maria Veronica Santelices & Mark Wilson, Unfair Treatment?: The Case of Freedle, the SAT,
and the Standardization Approach to Differential Item Functioning, 80 Harv. Educ. Rev.
106 (2010) ............................................................................................................................. 16
T. Schmader et al., An Integrated Process Model of Stereotype Threat Effects on Performance,
115 Psychol. Rev. 336 (2008) ............................................................................................... 18
Robert T. Teranishi et al Heterogeneity among Asian Americans: Implications for Using
Standardized Test Scores to Estimate Discriminatory College Admissions Practices, CARE
(Nov. 2015) ........................................................................................................................... 17
Robert T. Teranishi, Asians in the Ivory Tower: Dilemmas of Racial Inequality in American
Higher Education 26 (2010) .................................................................................................. 5
U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, available at
http://factfinder. census.gov/ ................................................................................................... 6
KaYing Yang, Southeast Asian American Children: Not the “Model Minority,” 14 The Future
of Children 127 (2004) ………………………………………………………………………….6

iv

INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE
The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (“AALDEF”), headquartered
in New York City and founded in 1974, is a national organization that promotes the civil rights
of Asian Americans. By combining litigation, advocacy, education, and organizing, AALDEF
protects the rights of Asian Americans and supports educational equity in higher education.
AALDEF has an interest in this litigation because its work with community-based youth
advocates across the country has revealed that Asian American students benefit from
individualized race-conscious admissions policies as well as from diverse educational settings.
AALDEF opposes any cap, quota, or negative action against Asian Americans. However,
AALDEF believes that narrowly tailored, individualized admissions programs strongly benefit
the Asian American community.
AALDEF is joined in this amicus brief by the following organizational entities and
higher education faculty members, who are described in more detail in the Addendum:
18MillionRising.org (18MR.org), the Asian American Federation (AAF), the Asian American
Psychological Association, Asian Americans United, the Asian Law Alliance, the Asian
Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA), AFL-CIO, the Asian Pacific American Network
(APAN), the Asian Pacific American Women Lawyers Alliance (APAWLA), Asian Pacific
Islander Americans for Civic Empowerment, Chinese for Affirmative Action, the Chinese
Progressive Association, Coalition for Asian American Children & Families, GAPIMNY, the
Japanese American Citizens League, LEAP (Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics), the
National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development (National CAPACD),
the National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, the National Queer Asian
Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA), OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates, Southeast
1

Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC), Vichet Chhuon, Ph.D., Gabriel J. Chin, J.D., LLM,
Tarry Hum, MCP, Ph.D., Anil Kalhan, J.D., MPPM, Nancy Leong, J.D., Shirley Lung, J.D,
Mari J. Matsuda, J.D., LLM, Kevin Nadal, Ph.D., Philip Tajitsu Nash, J.D., Cathy J. SchlundVials, Ph.D., Sona Shah, M.A., John Kuo Wei Tchen, Ph.D., Margaret Y.K. Woo, J.D., LLM,
and K. Wayne Yang, Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION
AALDEF and its co-amici are committed to the fight for freedom, justice, and equality
for all. As part of their commitment to equality, AALDEF and its co-amici support the use of
race-conscious admissions programs that are narrowly tailored with individualized
consideration.
community.

Amici believe that such programs strongly benefit the Asian American
The inequities faced by Asian students who are members of certain Asian

subgroups are frequently hidden by the aggregation of data into a single, monolithic “Asian”
category.

Students from these subgroups have faced pervasive social and economic

disadvantages, low educational attainment, and even racial intimidation and harassment.
The Supreme Court has long upheld as constitutional the use of race in college
admissions and, notably, has pointed to Harvard’s admissions policy as a model. Justice
Powell did so in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), and
appended Harvard’s policy to his opinion. That policy was again discussed approvingly in
Grutter v Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) and Fisher v. Univ. of Tex., 136 S. Ct. 2198, 2207
(2016) (“Fisher II”) (“the consideration of race, within the full context of the entire application,
may be beneficial to any UT Austin applicant—including whites and Asian-Americans”)
(citing Brief for Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund et al. as Amici Curiae at
12). The record evidence indicates that Harvard’s admissions policy, contrary to the arguments
2

of SFFA and its Amici, considers race and ethnic origin on an individualized basis within the
context of a student’s entire application. This kind of individualized treatment thwarts the
harmful “model minority” myth that masks vast diversity within the Asian American
community.
SFFA’s arguments ignore the diversity within the Asian American community as well
as the many benefits of diversity that accrue to Asian Americans. Although SFFA alleges that
there has been negative action against Asian Americans in Harvard’s admissions process,
AALDEF has not identified any record evidence showing intentional discrimination against
Asian Americans. Moreover, rather than vindicating the rights of Asian Americans, SFFA’s
apparent true aim is to dismantle race-conscious admissions altogether. AALDEF believes that
the Plaintiff’s broad-based attack will harm all minorities, including Asian Americans and
especially those Asian American applicants in communities struggling with low educational
attainment and low socioeconomic status.

ARGUMENT
A.

Asian Americans Benefit From Race-Conscious Admissions Programs.

SFFA’s arguments incorrectly presume that race-conscious admissions programs like
Harvard’s only benefit Black and Latino applicants, not Asian Americans. To the contrary,
students of all races benefit from a diverse student body, which provides a range of cognitive
and social benefits. Moreover, individualized admissions policies like Harvard’s directly
benefit Asian American applicants by taking into account the vast diversity within the Asian
community.

Asian American subgroups differ significantly by ethnicity, language,

socioeconomic status, immigrant status, and religion; lumping all subgroups together as a

3

single “Asian” monolith fails to capture the complex reality of their experiences. Harvard’s
admissions process specifically recognizes these differences, treating Asian applicants as
individuals.
1.

The Benefits of Diversity Accrue to All Students.

The benefits of student body diversity accrue to all students, including Asian
Americans. Studies have demonstrated that interactions with a diverse student body lead to
higher levels of intellectual and civic engagement among Asian American college students.1
These benefits continue as students graduate and enter an “increasingly diverse workforce.”
See Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330 (citation omitted). Student diversity also has positive social
effects on the campus as a whole. See Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle
School Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 797-98 (2007) (Kennedy, J., concurring); Grutter, 539 U.S.
at 328-29; Bakke, 438 U.S. at 312-13.

A diverse student body “promotes cross-racial

understanding, helps to break down racial stereotypes, and enables students to better
understand persons of different races.” Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2210 (2016) (internal quotations
omitted). Asian Americans and other groups come to see each other more favorably, which
leads to improved intergroup relations and reduced racial stereotyping. See Grutter, 539 U.S.
at 328-29.

1

See NYU CARE, Asian Americans and the Benefits of Campus Diversity: What the Research Says 1 (2012),
available at http://care.gseis.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CARE-asian_am_ diversity_D4.pdf; Patricia
Gurin et al., Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on Educational Outcomes, 72 Harv. Educ. Rev.
330, 351-353, 354 tbl.3 (2002); Mark E. Engberg & Sylvia Hurtado, Developing Pluralistic Skills and
Dispositions in College: Examining Racial/Ethnic Group Differences, 82 J. Higher Educ. 416, 434 (2011)
(observing that while “the effects of intergroup learning on the pluralistic measure were significant for all other
groups,” Asian American students “seem to demonstrate the strongest benefit”).

4

2.

There Is Substantial Diversity Within the Asian American
Community.

The term “Asian American” refers to a diverse population with over 50 ethnic
subgroups, 100 languages, and a broad range of socio-historical, cultural, religious, and
political experiences.2 Some Asian Americans are multi-generation Americans, some are
from immigrant families, some are refugees, and some are the adopted children of non-Asian
parents. Students from these different subgroups face vastly differing socioeconomic and
educational realities; while some achieve great academic and professional success, others
struggle to obtain high school diplomas.3 It is impossible to generalize a single “typical”
Asian experience.4
In particular, the different immigration histories of Asian American subgroups have
shaped their socioeconomic experiences in the United States. For example, many East Asian
and South Asian immigrants from countries like India, Korea, China, and Taiwan traveled
voluntarily to the United States as highly-educated professionals.5 Many spoke fluent English
prior to their arrival, and were admitted under immigration policies giving employment
preference to professionals who “hold[] advanced degrees” or have “exceptional ability.” See,
e.g., Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978. These immigrants arrived
with substantial social capital that “often correlated with educational and social mobility.”6

2

Stacey Lee and Kevin Kumashiro, A Report on the Status of Asian Americans and Pacific Islander in Education:
Beyond the “Model Minority” Stereotype, National Education Association, at xi (2005).
3

OiYan Poon et al., A Critical Review of the Model Minority Myth in Selected Literature on Asian Americans and
Pacific Islanders in Higher Education, 86 Rev. of Educational Research 469, 472 (2016).
4

Robert T. Teranishi, Asians in the Ivory Tower: Dilemmas of Racial Inequality in American Higher Education
26 (2010).
5

Lee and Kumashiro, Report, supra, at 2.

6

Teranishi, Asians in the Ivory Tower, supra, at 31. In 2016, the United States admitted 81,288 immigrants from
Asia under the employment-based preference. See Department of Homeland Security, Yearbook of Immigration
Statistics:
2016
at 27-28,
available at
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2016

5

By contrast, many Southeast Asian Americans arrived as refugees from Cambodia,
Laos, Vietnam, and Myanmar.7 Most started their new lives in America with few material
goods or local connections, and many were traumatized by war, their escape, or years in
refugee camps. Once here, they were forced to navigate unfamiliar social and education
systems with limited English language skills. Today, nearly three decades after Southeast
Asian refugees began arriving in America, many continue to struggle with long-term poverty,
literacy issues, and post-traumatic stress disorder. For example, in 2016, 21.7 percent of
Hmong, 16.1 percent of Cambodians, and 25.2 percent of refugees from Myanmar lived below
the poverty line, as compared to 14.0 percent of all Americans.8
Southeast Asians also lag behind other Asian American subgroups in educational
attainment.

In 2010, over 30 percent of Hmong, Cambodian, Vietnamese, and Laotian

individuals over the age of 25 did not have a high school diploma, as compared to 15 percent
of all Asian Americans.9 These discrepancies are due to a variety of barriers facing Southeast
Asian children, including poverty, limited English, feelings of alienation in the classroom, and
persistent miscommunication between students, teachers, and parents.10 Even American-born
Southeast Asian children can have limited English language skills when they first begin

%20Yearbook%20of%20Immigration%20Statistics.pdf. Twenty five per-cent of the admittees were from India,
25% were from China, and 17% were from South Korea. In contrast, only 1,261 individuals (1.55%) were
admitted under the employment-based preference from Vietnam.
7

le Kim and Wooksoo Kim, Post-resettlement Challenges and Mental Health of Southeast Asian Refugees in the
United States, 10 Best Practices in Mental Health 63, 64 (2014).
8

U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, available at http://factfinder.
census.gov/.
9

ACS 1-Year Estimates, supra.

KaYing Yang, Southeast Asian American Children: Not the “Model Minority,” 14 The Future of Children 127,
127 (2004)
10

6

school, because English is not spoken at home.11 This can lead to later difficulties, especially
on high-stakes testing like the SATs, which require a high level of English proficiency.12
3.

Individualized Admissions Policies Prevent Asian Americans
from Being Improperly Grouped Into A Single “Asian”
Category.

Narrowly-tailored, individualized admissions programs like Harvard’s are uniquely
equipped to take into account the vast diversity of the Asian American community. See, e.g.,
Smith v. University of Washington Law School, 392 F.3d 367, 378 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding
admissions program that recognized “different cultures, back-grounds, and languages” of
“applicants whose families or who themselves originated from the Philippines, Viet Nam,
Cambodia, Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China”).

Harvard’s admissions process

considers each applicant as a whole person, comparing their qualifications with those of all
other applicants, and assessing them in the context of the opportunities and challenges they
have faced. See Report of David Card, Ph.D, Ex. 33 to Decl. of Felicia H. Ellsworth in Supp.
of Harvard’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Card Rep.”) at 16, 19. Race is one consideration among
multiple variables, including standardized test scores, an alumni interviewer evaluation, letters
of recommendation, applicant essays, the academic strength of applicants’ high schools, the
economic and demographic profile of applicants’ communities, parents’ level of education,
extracurricular activities, and optional submissions of scholarly work, artwork, or recordings of
music or dance performances. See Harvard Stmt. of Material Facts (“Harvard’s SMF”) ¶¶ 15,
22.

11

Id.

12

Id.

7

Individualized admissions programs like Harvard’s prevent Asian Americans from
being grouped into one monolithic “Asian” category, blurring the different socioeconomic
realities that different ethnic subgroups face. In fact, Harvard specifically considers these
differences when examining Asian American applicants.

See, e.g., Ellsworth Ex. 141

(comment that “[applicant] is a very deserving student from a first generation Vietnamese
background who is valedictorian for this city-wide magnet school”); Ellsworth Ex. 131
(applicant of Nepali descent “[c]ertainly would bring a fascinating perspective to campus”);
Ellsworth Ex. 142 (“Tug for BG [background] here, she writes well about the plight of exiled
Tibetans and T2 [second teacher recommendation] lets us know that both of her parents were
born in Tibetan refugee camps in India.”); Ellsworth Ex. 130 (“B/G [background] of interest as
he [applicant of Indian origin] would be someone who would add to the mix at H.”).
Other Amici, Students in Support of Harvard, have submitted affidavits explaining how
Harvard’s admissions process considers differences in the Asian American community. For
example, a declaration by one Harvard junior, a Vietnamese American who immigrated to the
United States at age eight, explained how he believed his personal statement about his
experiences as an immigrant and English learner helped overcome his less-than-competitive
SAT score. See Declaration of T.D., Ex. 1.8 to Mem. Of Amici Curiae in Supp. of Harvard’s
Mot. for Summ. J. (“Students”). A declaration by a Harvard sophomore, a Chinese American,
discussed how she was stereotyped as “Asian” in her high school, where everyone assumed she
“must be good at everything,” which made it difficult for her to ask for academic assistance.
Although her

grades were “middle-of-the road—high enough to meet the minimum

requirements, but not outstanding compared to other students at [her] school,” she too believed
she was admitted to Harvard in part on the strength of her personal essay, which discussed her

8

relationship with her sister and her love of astronomy.

See Students Ex. 1.1.

These

declarations illustrate the individualized admissions process at Harvard.
B.

SFFA’s Arguments Do Not Advance the Goals of Asian Applicants.

SFFA makes a number of arguments that suggest its ultimate goal is not the protection
of Asian American applicants, but the dismantling of race-conscious admissions.13 First,
SFFA conflates the question of whether Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy is
permissible with the question of whether Asian American applicants face bias during the
admissions process. These two concepts—race-conscious policies versus negative action—are
substantively distinct. Second, SFFA treats Asian Americans as a monolithic group, focusing
on their perceived academic prowess and thereby buying into the harmful “model minority”
stereotype that lumps Asian applicants into one stereotypical group. The model minority
stereotype not only erases significant differences between Asian American subgroups, but has
long been used as a tool of racial wedge politics to punish other marginalized groups of color
and undermine legitimate race-conscious admissions policies.14 Finally, contrary to SSFA’s
claims, its proposed remedy—the elimination of Harvard’s race-conscious admissions
process—would mostly benefit white students, not Asian American students. See infra at B.3.

Given the identity of SFFA’s founder, Edward Blum, and his explicit and relentless campaign to eliminate raceconscious admissions, it is unsurprising that SFFA’s arguments fail to earnestly advance the rights of Asian
American students. See Joan Biskupic, Special Report: Behind U.S. Race Cases, a Little Known Recruiter,
REUTERS, Dec. 4, 2012, http://www. reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-casemaker-idUSBRE8B30V220121204;
Stephanie Mencimer, Meet the Brains Behind the Effort to Get the Supreme Court to Rethink Civil Rights, Mother
Jones,
March/April
2016,
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/edward-blum-supreme-courtaffirmative-action-civil-rights/.
13

14

OiYan Poon et al., A Critical Review of the Model Minority Myth, supra, at 19.

9

1.
SFFA Conflates Negative Action and Race-Conscious
Admissions Policies.
Negative action and race-conscious admissions are two distinct concepts.15
Discrimination against a particular group (negative action) is fundamentally different from a
race-conscious admissions policy that recognizes the importance of diversity. Here, SFFA
conflates the question of whether Asian American applicants face negative action with the
question of whether Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy is permissible. But SFFA has
not shown how Harvard’s purported negative action against Asian American applicants results
from its efforts to create a diverse student body through race-conscious admissions,16 nor how
negative action would be eliminated by ending race-conscious admissions. SFFA’s conflation
of these two distinct concepts is particularly problematic because it uses the alleged
discrimination against Asian American applicants as a tool to attack a policy that benefits both
Asian Americans and other minorities.
SFFA’s analytical error disregards leading scholarship by Asian American researchers,
which emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between race-conscious admissions and
negative action.17 These publications in law, ethnic studies and sociology point out that there
are two major problems with failing to distinguish race-conscious policies and negative action.
First, the conflation creates the false impression that Asian Americans would be the
beneficiaries of dismantling race-conscious admissions. Second, it fails to confront the more

15

See William C. Kidder, Situating Asian Pacific Americans in the Law School Affirmative Action Debate:
Empirical Facts about Thernstrom’s Rhetorical Acts, 7 Asian Am. L.J. 29, 33, 60 (2000); Jerry Kang, Negative
Action Against Asian Americans: The Internal Instability of Dworkin’s Defense of Affirmative Action, 31 Harv.
C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 1, 3-4 (1996).
SFFA’s own briefing concedes that the alleged bias against Asian American applicants is not caused by any
benefit Harvard’s race-conscious policy may have on Black and Latino admission rates, implicitly acknowledging
the difference between negative action and race-conscious admissions. See SFFA Br. at 13.
16

17

Kidder, Situating Asian Pacific Americans, supra, at 608.

10

logical focus of activism: ending negative action.18 As Asian American scholars point out,
ending negative action itself would “yield a much higher payoff in terms of increasing
educational opportunities” than focusing criticism on race-conscious policies.19 Here, SFFA
attempts to distract the Court in the same manner by suggesting that ending race-conscious
admissions at Harvard would end the alleged discrimination against Asian applicants. The
two concepts are distinct.
2.

SFFA’s Arguments Treat Asian Americans as a Monolithic
Group, Thereby Perpetuating the “Model Minority” Myth.

The treatment of any racial population as monolithic is problematic and promotes
racial stereotyping. Here, SFFA adopts the “model minority” stereotype by focusing on Asian
American applicants’ perceived academic prowess over other minority groups. See Plaintiff’s
Mem. In Supp. of Summ. Judg. (“SFFA Br.”), Dkt. No. 413, at 7, 9. The model minority
myth is the notion that Asian Americans have achieved universal academic and professional
success through hard work and adherence to Asian cultural norms.20 Although the model
minority myth is often seen as harmless, or even positive, it has numerous negative effects for
Asian Americans and other students of color. For example, not only does the myth hide the
diversity of the Asian American experience, but Asian American studies scholars have long
noted that it has been used strategically by opponents of race-conscious policies “to support
the notion of meritocracy” and promote the idea that racial discrimination “does not impede
the educational and occupational progress of racial/ethnic minorities.”21 It is no coincidence

18

Id. at 616.

19

Id. at 616.

20

Lee and Kumashiro, Report, supra, at xi.

21

Samuel Museus and Peter Kiang, Deconstructing the Model Minority Myth and How It Contributes to the
Invisible Minority Reality in Higher Education Research, 142 New Directions for Inst. Res. 5, 6 (2009).

11

that the myth first gained widespread popularity during the Civil Rights Era, when it was used
as a tool to silence Black activists’ claims of racial inequality.22
The model minority myth is based on three key misconceptions about the Asian
experience: (1) all Asian Americans are the same; (2) Asian Americans do not face major
challenges because of their race; and (3) Asian Americans do not require resources or support
but can overcome discrimination solely based on their own efforts.23 These assumptions are
demonstrably false. As discussed above, Asian Americans are a diverse and complex group
with vastly different levels of education and economic attainment.

Many face similar

challenges to those facing Black and Latino students—discrimination, structural inequality,
poverty, lack of access to education—and require support accordingly. To pretend otherwise
diverts attention from the real and pervasive racial inequalities facing the Asian American
community.
SFFA’s arguments contain all the hallmarks of the model minority myth.

SFFA

focuses on Asian American applicants’ supposedly universal academic success, failing to
distinguish between the different levels of education attainment of different subgroups. See
SFFA Br. at 7, 9. SFFA’s proposed remedy—the abolishment of race-conscious admissions at
Harvard—rests on the assumption that either Asian Americans do not face any challenges that
allow them to benefit from race-conscious admissions, or do not require any resources or
support to remedy the structural inequalities they face. Finally, like so many other opponents
of race-conscious admissions, there is substantial reason to believe that SSFA is employing the
model minority myth to eliminate legitimate race-conscious policies entirely.

22

Lee and Kumashiro, Report, supra, at xi.

23

Museus and Kiang, Deconstructing the Model Minority Myth, supra, at 7-13.

12

The Court

should recognize SFFA’s arguments for what they are: distortions of the Asian American
experience designed to promote a specific agenda.
3.

SFFA’s Requested Remedy—the Elimination of RaceConscious Admissions—Will Mostly Benefit White
Candidates, not Asian American Candidates.

There is a significant disconnect between SFFA’s claims and its proposed remedy.
Although purporting to address harm to Asian American applicants, SFFA’s proposed
remedy—the elimination of all race-conscious admissions—does not vindicate the rights of
Asian American students.

First, as discussed above, negative action and race-conscious

policies are distinct concepts. Ending race-conscious admissions does not address negative
action.

Furthermore, like other racial minorities, Asian American students benefit from

individualized race-conscious admissions programs like Harvard’s that allow admissions
officers to consider how race and ethnicity have shaped an applicant’s experiences. Second,
eliminating race-conscious admissions policies primarily benefits white applicants, not Asian
Americans.24 For example, after Proposition 209 put an end to race-conscious admissions in
California in 1996, Asian American enrollment at UC Law Schools remained flat, while white
enrollment rose significantly.25
The results would be the same here. According to Harvard’s expert, eliminating all
considerations of race increases white students’ share of the admitted class by 8 percentage
points, from 40 percent to 48 percent. Card Rep. at 103. By contrast, Asian American
students’ share increases by only 3 percentage points, from 24 to 27. Id. SFFA’s proposed
remedy does not align with its purported goals, further calling into question SFFA’s objectives

24

See, e.g., Ben Backes, Do Affirmative Action Bans Lower Minority College Enrollment and Attainment?
Evidence from Statewide Bans, 47 J. Hum. Resources 435, 448-50 (2012).
25

Kidder, Situating Asian Pacific Americans, supra, at 40.

13

in this challenge and its good faith in claiming to advance the best interests of Asian American
students.
C.

Plaintiff and Its Amici Have Not Established Negative Action Against
Asian Americans in Harvard’s Admissions Process.

In its effort to obtain the educational benefits that result from student diversity, Harvard
uses race within the context of “a highly individualized, holistic review” that gives “serious
consideration to all the ways an applicant might contribute to a diverse educational
environment.” See Grutter, 539 U.S. at 337. Harvard undertakes its individualized holistic
review by evaluating candidate information across six categories, including academic, extracurricular, athletics, personal, strength of recommendations, and overall. Harvard SMF at ¶¶
43-45. Harvard maintains that it considers race, if at all, when undertaking the “overall”
review.
In claiming that Harvard has intentionally discriminated against Asian American
applicants, Plaintiff and its Amici26 make two central arguments. First, Plaintiff’s Amici imply
that standardized test scores are a determinative indicator of comparative merit. Second, the
Plaintiff argues that Harvard takes negative action against Asian American applicants by
intentionally awarding them lower scores on the personal category to limit the percentage of
admitted Asian Americans. Both arguments are flawed. Standardized test score data are
inherently unreliable as a measure of comparative merit and provide no evidence that Harvard
has established a goal, target, or other quantitative objective for the admission of any particular
group. Further, the Plaintiff’s argument regarding the personal category rests on unsupported
assumptions and a mistaken view of the evidence.

National Association of Scholars (“NAS”) and the Asian American Legal Foundation (“AALF”) and
the Asian American Coalition for Education.
26

14

1.

Standardized Test Score Data at Harvard Do Not Show
Negative Action Against Asian Americans.

SAT score statistics at Harvard do not demonstrate negative action against Asian
Americans, contrary to the arguments made by Plaintiff’s Amici. See AALF Br, at 14; see also
NAS Br. at 7-9. The differences in average standardized test scores between Asian Americans
and other racial or ethnic groups reflect existing disparities among Harvard applicants. These
scores can also be boosted by costly test-preparation courses, further widening the gap between
students with and without financial means. Averaging SAT scores also obscures the wide
distribution of scores among Asian American candidates, scores that are often tainted by what
social scientists describe as “stereotype threats.” Notably, more than 1000 accredited colleges
and universities do not require standardized test scores to admit students into their bachelordegree programs or otherwise de-emphasize the use of standardized tests. 27
Claims about differential standardized test scores by race are often highly misleading, if
not demonstrably false.

Differences in average scores among racial or ethnic groups at

institutions such as Harvard reflect the racial/ethnic test score disparities already present in the
applicant pool, resulting from socioeconomic differences, educational practices, and other
environmental factors. See Claude S. Fischer et al., Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell
Curve Myth 46 (1996); William G. Bowen & Derek Bok, The Shape of the River: Long-Term
Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions 16 (2d ed. 2000).

See FairTest, National Center for Fair and Open testing, “Optional List,” (Current as of Summer 2018),
available at http://www.fairtest.org/university/optional. A four-year study of 33 private and public test-optional
colleges and universities found that, of 123,000 students, 30 percent had been admitted without submitting test
scores. The study concluded that there was no significant difference between nonsubmitters and submitters in
graduation rates (0.6 percent lower for nonsubmitters) or cumulative G.P.A. (2.83 for nonsubmitters, 2.88 with
test scores). Data also showed that nonsubmitters are more likely than submitters to be first-generation-to-college
enrollees, underrepresented minorities, women, Pell Grant recipients and students with learning differences. See
W.C. Hiss and V.W. Franks, Defining Promise: Optional Standardized testing Policies in American College and
University Admissions, National Association for College Admissions Counseling (Feb. 5, 2014).
27

15

They are to be expected regardless of whether race neutral or race conscious criteria are used.
See, e.g., Maria Veronica Santelices & Mark Wilson, Unfair Treatment?: The Case of Freedle,
the SAT, and the Standardization Approach to Differential Item Functioning, 80 Harv. Educ.
Rev. 106 (2010); William T. Dickens & Thomas J. Kane, Racial Test Score Differences as
Evidence of Reverse Discrimination: Less Than Meets the Eye, 38 Indus. Rel. 331 (1999).28
Disparities in racial/ethnic SAT score averages on par with Harvard’s individualized
admissions pool are found nationwide, including at other leading universities like UC Berkeley
and UCLA that use race-neutral admissions.

William C. Kidder, Misshaping the River:

Proposition 209 and Lessons for the Fisher Case 39 J.C. & U.L. 53, 95 (2013). The College
Board, which created the SAT, has itself acknowledged this phenomenon. See Jennifer L.
Kobrin et al., A Historical View of Subgroup Performance Differences on the SAT Reasoning
Test

19

(The

College

Board

2007),

available

at

http://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/ publications/2012/7/researchreport-2006-5historical-view-subgroup-performance-sat.pdf (finding that score gaps between different racial
groups have “remained generally consistent” for 20 years).
Significantly, Plaintiff’s Amici rely heavily on discredited data to argue that
standardized tests establish the comparative merit of Asian American applicants. See, e.g.,
AALF Br. at 14.

Specifically, Amici cite statistics from a 2009 article by Thomas J.

Espenshade. Id. In a subsequent interview however, Espenshade cast doubt on the usefulness
of his data to establish that there was any bias towards Asian American students in admissions.
Scott Jaschik, The Power of Race, Inside Higher Ed (Nov. 3, 2009), available at

28

These disparities would exist even in the extreme (but counterfactual) case of a university admitting students in
rank order based solely on their SAT scores. See Goodwin Liu, The Causation Fallacy: Bakke and the Basic
Arithmetic of Selective Admissions, 100 Mich. L. Rev. 1045, 1064 (2002).
16

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/03/elite (explaining that his data did not
include “softer variables” such as recommendations, essays, and extracurricular activities that
might help explain the disparity). In 2012, Espenshade wrote in an Op-Ed in The New York
Times: “To be clear, I believe that race-conscious affirmative action is necessary, and often
beneficial.” Thomas J. Espenshade, Moving Beyond Affirmative Action, The New York Times
(Oct. 4, 2012), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion /moving-beyondaffirmative-action.html).
Additionally, students can improve test scores by attending test-preparation courses.
Such courses are, however, generally available only to those with financial means. Score
differences might therefore result from socioeconomic disparities. See Jay Rosner, Disparate
Outcomes by Design: University Admissions Test, 12 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 377, 383-84
(2001); Sigal Alon & Marta Tienda, Diversity, Opportunity, and the Shifting Meritocracy in
Higher Education, 72 Am. Soc. Rev. 487, 490-91 (2007).
Amici’s misleading arguments based on average SAT scores also fail to account for the
bimodal distribution of SAT scores among Asian Americans. Asian Americans have the
widest distribution in standardized test scores and a higher standard deviation than whites. See
Robert T. Teranishi et al., Heterogeneity among Asian Americans: Implications for Using
Standardized Test Scores to Estimate Discriminatory College Admissions Practices, CARE
(Nov. 2015). In contrast to the SAT scores of white students, which have a normal
distribution, the SAT scores of Asian Americans have a bimodal distribution. Id. (“Whites
have a normal distribution that is consistent with how scores are distributed from the mean for
other racial groups. Asian Americans have a higher representation at the top scores, lower
representation among middle-range scores, and higher representation among lower scores.”).

17

Thus, a comparison between the SAT scores of whites compared to Asian Americans does not
fully convey the distribution of SAT scores across those populations.
Moreover, SAT scores are a poor proxy for the comparative merit of applicants
because, inter alia, the SAT scores of minority students are tainted by what social scientists
describe as “stereotype threats.” Stereotype threats are a phenomenon whereby individuals
fear confirming negative stereotypes of their racial or ethnic group and said fear hurts their
performance. See T. Schmader et al., An Integrated Process Model of Stereotype Threat Effects
on Performance, 115 Psychol. Rev. 336, 336 (2008) (“[A] large body of work now testifies to
the reliability and generalizability of stereotype threat effects on performance.”). “[A]ctivating
negative stereotypes about a social identity one possesses motivates individuals to try to
combat that stereotype but that this creates some sort of extra situational burden that interferes
with the ability to perform as well at a task as might otherwise be possible.” Id. For example,
when told questions are designed to test their intellectual ability, African American students
perform worse than their white peers, but this gap diminishes when the students are told the
same questions are non-diagnostic. Id. at 336-337. For this reason, SAT scores cannot be the
whole story when evaluating potential students.29 A college or university like Harvard seeking
to admit students with the most potential must look beyond standardized test scores and
consider the whole applicant, including whether other factors (e.g. race-based stereotyping)
may have affected said scores.

29

Stereotype threats also harm the performance of students once enrolled in college. See J. Owens and D.S.
Massey, Stereotype Threat and College Academic Performance: A Latent Variables Approach, 40 Soc. Sci. Res.
150 (2011). Increased diversity minimizes the effect. Underrepresentation breeds stereotypes; however, when a
group is sufficiently represented, the burden on each individual student is lessened, and stereotype threat has less
of an effect. See V. Purdie-Vaughns et al., Social Identity Contingencies: How Diversity Cues Signal Threat or
Safety for African Americans in Mainstream Institutions, 94 J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 615 (2008).

18

2.

Plaintiff’s Assumed Bias in the Personal Score is Not
Supported by the Data.

Plaintiff concludes that Harvard intentionally discriminates against Asian American
applicants because Asian Americans receive the lowest score on average of any racial group in
the personal category, despite higher than average scores in other areas evaluated in the
admissions process (mainly, the academic score). SFFA Br. at 7-9. A key element of this
argument is Plaintiff’s contention that Harvard employs the qualitative elements of the
personal category to effectuate a stereotypical view of Asian American applicants.

The

Plaintiff bolsters this contention with the assumption that high scores in the academic and
extra-curricular categories should predict similarly high scores in the personal category. The
Plaintiff offers no support for this assumption and ignores the fact that the academic category
also includes qualitative criteria. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s challenge based on the personal
category is without merit and Plaintiff is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Plaintiff’s argument is flawed because the academic rating category includes a number
of qualitative criteria such as criteria scored by Harvard admissions officers (the applicant’s
high school’s characteristics, high school’s curriculum, and academic prizes), Harvard faculty
members (appraisals of the student’s academic or written work), and the applicant’s high
school teachers and counselors who submit letters of recommendation. Card Rebuttal Repot at
¶ 24. After considering the various criteria, the admission officer then assigns an overall
numerical value to the category, an exercise that is based on judgment and not a formula.
Harvard SMF at ¶¶ 45, 64-65. It is illogical and unreasonable to assume that if Harvard were
engaged in negative action, it would by design use qualitative factors to disfavor Asian
Americans in the personal category, but use qualitative factors to favor them in the academic
category.
19

AALDEF and its co-Amici are well aware and disturbed by the history of
discriminatory admission policies, particularly at elite private universities, affecting Jews,
African Americans, Asian Americans, women, and others.

Amici would never knowingly

support exclusionary admissions policies against minority applicants, including Asian
Americans. The undersigned amici would vigorously oppose any cap, quota, bias, or other
kind of negative action, formal or informal, affecting Asian Americans or any other group. For
this reason, Amici urge Harvard to take immediate steps to lessen even the possibility that any
of its admissions decisions, including the personal category rating, are affected by implicit
biases of persons at Harvard or other outside influencers (such as teachers, coaches,
counselors, or alumni interviewers).

This record does not, however, support such an

undisputed finding. Nor does room for further consideration or refinement of Harvard’s
admissions policy mean it is legally infirm. SFFA has wholly failed to meet its burden and is
not entitled to summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, AALDEF and its co-Amici maintain that the Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. AALDEF and its coAmici therefore urge this Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment .
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: August 30, 2018
/s/_Madeleine K. Rodriguez_______
Dean Richlin, BBO #419200
Hemmie Chang, BBO#544249
Sarah Burg, BBO#683245
Madeleine K. Rodriguez, BBO #684394
Rachel Hutchinson, BBO#696739
Foley Hoag LLP
155 Seaport Boulevard
Boston, MA 02210
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
20

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Kenneth Kimerling, pro hac vice
admission pending
Asian American Legal Defense and
Education Fund
99 Hudson Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10013-2815
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Asian American Legal
Defense and Education Fund, et al.

21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the CM/ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing.
/s/_Madeleine K. Rodriguez____________

22

ADDENDUM

ADDENDUM – LIST OF AMICI CURIAE
Organizational Entities
The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (“AALDEF”), headquartered in
New York City and founded in 1974, is a national organization that promotes the civil rights of
Asian Americans. By combining litigation, advocacy, education, and organizing, AALDEF
protects the rights of Asian Americans and supports educational equity in higher education.
18MillionRising.org (18MR.org) brings many disparate Asian American communities
together online and offline to reimagine Asian American identity with nuance, specificity, and
power. It is using this Asian American identity as the foundation to build a more just and
creative world where Asian American experiences are affirmed, their leadership is valued, and
all of them have the opportunity to thrive.
The Asian American Federation (AAF) is a pan-Asian nonprofit leadership organization that
represents and supports a network of nearly 70 Asian American community service
organizations in New York City that work in health and human services, education, economic
development, civic participation, and social justice. AAF’s mission is to raise the influence and
well-being of the pan-Asian American community through research, policy advocacy, public
awareness, and organizational development.
The Asian American Psychological Association aims to promote the mental health and
wellbeing of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders across the United States.
Founded in 1985, the mission of Asian Americans United is to build leadership in Asian
American communities to build neighborhoods and unite against oppression. AAU has worked
in Philadelphia’s Asian American communities and in broader multiracial coalitions around
quality education, youth leadership, anti-Asian violence, immigrant rights, and folk arts and
cultural maintenance.
The Asian Law Alliance is a non-profit law office founded in 1977 by law students from
Santa Clara University School of Law. ALA’s mission is to provide equal access to the justice
system to Asian and Pacific Islanders and low income residents of Santa Clara County,
California. ALA provides legal services in the areas of public benefits, civil rights, domestic
violence, landlord and tenant law and immigration law.
Founded in 1992, the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA), AFL-CIO, is the
first and only national organization of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) workers,
most of whom are union members, and their allies advancing worker, immigrant, and civil
rights.
The Asian Pacific American Network (APAN) is dedicated to addressing the concerns and
issues of Asian Pacific Islander Desi American (APIDA) faculty, staff, and students in higher
education. APAN's purpose is to provide community, professional development, networking,
and affirmation of identity for APIDA higher education/student affairs professionals. APAN
represents APIDA issues and advocates for programs, services, research, and actions within the
A1

leadership of the Coalition for Multicultural Affairs (CMA) and the American College
Personnel Association (ACPA).
The Asian Pacific American Women Lawyers Alliance (APAWLA) is an organization that
promotes inclusion, empowerment and advancement of Asian Pacific American women in the
legal profession. APAWLA is devoted to advocating, educating, mentoring, networking, and
developing leadership within the profession and larger community. APAWLA members work
in solo practices, law firms, state and federal courts; as prosecutors, defenders, and civil
practitioners; and in non-profits and government agencies; and, inspired by the great movement
for Civil Rights, APAWLA shares a common goal of gender and racial equality.
Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic Empowerment envisions a just, inclusive, and
progressive Washington State with racial, political, and economic equity for all people,
including AAPIs. APACE expands democracy by identifying and removing barriers that
prevent AAPIs from full civic engagement. It creates pathways that educate and mobilize our
diverse communities to take civic action across Washington State.
Chinese for Affirmative Action is a community-based civil rights organization in San
Francisco. The mission of the organization is to protect the political and civil rights of Chinese
Americans and to advance multi-racial democracy in the United States.
Founded in 1972, the Chinese Progressive Association educates, organizes and empowers the
low income and working class immigrant Chinese community in San Francisco to build
collective power with other oppressed communities to demand better living and working
conditions and justice for all people.
Coalition for Asian American Children & Families is the nation’s only pan-Asian children’s
advocacy organization. CACF improves the health and well-being of Asian Pacific American
children, youth, and families in New York City by providing programs and policy campaigns
that challenge stereotypes of the “Asian model minority”; speaking out on behalf of families
in-need, especially immigrants struggling with poverty and limited English skills; and
advocating for better policies, funding, and access to services at the city and state level.
GAPIMNY is an all-volunteer, membership-based community organization that empowers
queer and transgender Asian Pacific Islander people in the greater New York metropolitan
area. GAPIMNY is committed to advancing racial justice and LGBTQ rights for
intersectionally marginalized communities, and supports affirmative action as a policy that
equalizes opportunity.
The Japanese American Citizens League, founded in 1929, is a national organization whose
ongoing mission is to secure and maintain the civil rights of Japanese Americans and all others
who are victimized by injustice and bigotry. The leaders and members of the JACL also work
to promote cultural, educational and social values and preserve the heritage and legacy of the
Japanese American community.
LEAP (Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics) is a national, nonprofit organization, with
A2

a mission to achieve full participation and equality for Asian and Pacific Islanders (APIs)
through leadership, empowerment, and policy.
The National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development (National
CAPACD – pronounced “capacity”) is a coalition of more than 100 local organizations that
advocate for and organize in low-income AAPI communities to further the economic and
social empowerment of low income AAPIs and equitable development of AAPI
neighborhoods. It strengthens and mobilizes its members to build power nationally and further
its vision of economic and social justice for all.
The National Korean American Service & Education Consortium’s mission is to organize
Korean and Asian Americans to achieve social, racial and economic justice. Founded in 1994
by local community-based organizations, NAKASEC’s affiliates are the Korean Resource
Center (Southern California), HANA Center (Greater Chicago), and NAKASEC VA (Northern
Virginia).
The National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA) is a federation of lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Asian American, South Asian, Southeast Asian, and
Pacific Islander (AAPI) organizations. It seeks to build the organizational capacity of local
LGBT AAPI groups, develop leadership, promote visibility, educate its community, enhance
grassroots organizing, expand collaborations, and challenge anti-LGBTQ bias and racism.
OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates is a national Asian American and Pacific Islander
civil rights organization dedicated to advancing the economic, political, and social well-being
of AAPIs. Through its chapters, OCA works to ensure that minority and low-income students
have equal and equitable access to educational opportunities and experiences.
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC) is the only national civil rights
organization devoted to empowering and uplifting the Southeast Asian American community.
It represents the largest community of refugees ever to be resettled to America from the
countries of Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, and works mindfully in solidarity with other
communities of color and social justice movements.
Higher Education Faculty
(Titles and institutional affiliations provided for identification purposes only)
Vichet Chhuon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Culture & Teaching
Faculty, Asian American Studies Program
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
Gabriel J. Chin, J.D., LLM
Edward L. Barrett Jr. Chair and Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor of Law
University of California, Davis School of Law
Tarry Hum, MCP, Ph.D.
A3

Professor and Chair, Department of Urban Studies
Queens College CUNY
Anil Kalhan, J.D., MPPM
Professor of Law
Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law
Nancy Leong, J.D.
Professor of Law
University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Shirley Lung, J.D.
Professor of Law
City University of New York School of Law
Mari J. Matsuda, J.D., LLM
Professor of Law
William S. Richardson School of Law
University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Kevin Nadal, Ph.D.
Professor
City University of New York
Philip Tajitsu Nash, J.D.
Lecturer, Asian American Studies Program and Latin American Studies Center
University of Maryland at College Park
Cathy J. Schlund-Vials, Ph.D.
Associate Dean for Humanities & Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Professor of English and Asian/Asian American Studies
University of Connecticut
Sona Shah, M.A.
Assistant Director & Lecturer, Center for Asian American Studies
University of Texas at Austin
John Kuo Wei Tchen, Ph.D.
Inaugural Clement A. Price Chair of Public History and Humanities
Rutgers University - Newark
Margaret Y.K. Woo, J.D., LLM
Associate Dean for Research & Interdisciplinary Education
Northeastern University School of Law

A4

K. Wayne Yang, Ph.D.
Provost, John Muir College
Associate Professor, Ethnic Studies
University of California, San Diego

A5