COMPLAINT AGAINST HARVARD UNIVERSITY AND THE
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE FOR
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ASIAN-AMERICAN APPLICANTS IN THE
COLLEGE ADMISSIONS PROCESS

Submitted to:
Office for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC, 20202
&
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Boston Regional Office, 8th floor
5 Post Office Square
Boston, Massachusetts 02109

By Coalition of Asian-American Associations

May 15, 2015

0

 Table of Contents
1. Introduction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2
2. Background • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4
3. Harvard University’s Discrimination against Asian-Americans
and Harm to Asian-American Families• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 12
4. Detailed Evidence of Discrimination and Specific Laws
Violated • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • 20
5. Asian-Americans’ View on American Education and College
Admission •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 44
6. Conclusion and Request for Relief • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 46
7. List of Co-complainants • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 47
Appendixes & References • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • 49

1

 1. INTRODUCTION
The undersigned coalition of Asian-American Associations (“Coalition”), consisting of some 64
Asian-American Associations and Organizations whose names and signatures are affixed below,
jointly file this Administrative Complaint for unlawful racial discrimination in college
admissions against Harvard University and the President and Fellows of Harvard College
(hereafter “Harvard,” “Harvard College” or “Harvard University”, located in 86 Brattle Street,
Cambridge, MA 02138), pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent rulings by The U.S.
Supreme Court.
This Complaint is filed on behalf of the constituents of the undersigned Asian-American
Associations and Organizations including Asian Americans who, because of their race, have
been unfairly rejected by Harvard College because of such unlawful use of race in the
admissions process, and/or who seek the opportunity to apply for admission without being
discriminated against because of their race.
The representative of the Coalition for purposes of this Complaint is Yukong Zhao and Jack
Ouyang with the following contact information: PO Box 276, Short Hills NJ 07078.
Over the last two decades, Asian-American applicants to Harvard University and other Ivy
League colleges have increasingly experienced discrimination in the admissions process. Many
Asian-American students who have almost perfect SAT scores, top 1% GPAs, plus significant
awards or leadership positions in various extracurricular activities have been rejected by Harvard
University and other Ivy League Colleges while similarly situated applicants of other races have
been admitted. Because of this discrimination, it has become especially difficult for highperforming male Asian-American students to gain admission to Harvard University and other Ivy
League colleges. In recently years these trends have become more and more severe. They are
widely reported by various Asian-American web bloggers and other media.
The discrimination against Asian-Americans by Harvard and other elite universities has been
reported in publications including Daniel Golden’s book The Price of Admission: How America's
Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges and Who Gets Left Outside (Golden 2007), i
Espenshade, Thomas J. & Alexandra Radford’s book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race
and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life (Espenshade/Radford 2009) ii and Ron
Unz’s article “The Myth of American Meritocracy” (Unz 2012). iii On November 17, 2014,
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Harvard University. iv The complaint
and other documents filed in the case provide comprehensive evidence demonstrating that
Harvard University systematically discriminates against Asian-American applicants during its
admission processes.
Based on overwhelming evidence uncovered by Daniel Golden, Thomas Espenshade/ Alexandra
Radford, Ron Unz, Richard Sander v, as well as that compiled by Students for Fair Admissions,
Inc., plus direct observations in the Asian-American communities, the coalition of AsianAmerican Associations decided to file this administrative complaint with the Office of Civil
Rights (“OCR”) of the U.S. Department of Education. In order to meet the OCR deadline, we file
2

 this complaint to OCR within 180 days after we obtained comprehensive evidence from the
complaint filed by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. on November 17th, 2014. We have also
decided to file this complaint with the Educational Opportunities Section of the Department of
Justice’s Civil Rights Division (DOJ) because many studies have indicated that Harvard
University is engaged in systematic racial discrimination against Asian-Americans.
Though we are aware that between 1988 and 1990, the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S.
Department of Education conducted an investigation of alleged discrimination by Harvard
against Asian-American applicants, we hereby request OCR and DOJ launch a new investigation
based on overwhelming new evidence uncovered and new studies published by many scholars in
recent years.

3

 2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Increase in Asian-American College Applicants over the Last Two Decades
Asian-Americans are a small minority group in the United States, consisting of more than 20
ethnic groups but with a population of only 18 million in 2011. vi
Historically, partially due to the restrictions imposed by the Chinese Exclusion Act, the AsianAmerican population in the United States stayed at the 0.2% level until after 1950. It gradually
grew to 1.5% in 1980. Over the last three decades, two major events have led to the rapid growth
of the Asian-American population in the United States. The first is the rapid expansion of
American high tech industries beginning in the1980s. This has driven the increase of highly
educated immigrants, the majority of them from Asia. The second is the normalization of the
relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China in 1978, which
enabled a large number of Chinese students to come to study in the United States, many of whom
later decided to stay in the U.S. As a result, the Asian-American population as a percentage of
the U.S. population has increased from 2.9% in 1990 to 5.6% in 2010. vii
Asian-American Population As Percentage of American Population
8.0%
7.5%
7.0%
6.5%
6.0%
5.6%

5.5%
5.0%
4.5%
4.2%

4.0%
3.5%
3.0%

2.9%

2.5%
2.0%
1.5%

1.5%

1.0%

0.8%

0.5%

0.5%
0.2%

0.0%
1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Well-educated Asian-Americans have become the backbone of American high tech industries,
engineering firms and research & development centers, contributing to American technology
leadership and economic prosperity. Asian-Americans are proud members of American society
and have been making substantial contributions to their nation.
The growth in the nation’s Asian-American population has naturally led to an increase in AsianAmerican college applicants. Based on Census data, college-age Asian-Americans have, as a
percentage of college-age Americans, increased from 3.0% in 1990 to 5.1% in 2011. viii
4

 Percentage of Asian-Americans with Age 18-21 in the U.S.
6.0%

5.1%

5.0%
4.8%
4.4%

4.5%

4.7%

4.7%
4.4%

4.5%

4.6% 4.6% 4.6%

4.4%

4.2%
4.0%

3.9%

3.9%
3.7%

3.2%
3.0%

3.0%

3.1%

3.0% 3.0%

2.5%

2.0%

1.0%
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2.2 Improving Qualifications of Asian-American Applicants to America’s Top Universities
As Asian-American families continue to improve their living standards, they are able to devote
more economic resources to their children’s education. In addition, the increasing numbers of
well-educated new immigrants from Asia over the last three decades has also expanded the pool
of high-performing Asian-American students. As a result, the performance of Asian students,
both at school and in extracurricular activities— the important factors considered by America’s
top universities when evaluating applicants—have not only been maintained at its originally high
level, but has further improved over the last two decades.
Since Harvard University only accepts applicants who demonstrate top-notch academic
performance and other qualifications, the following data focused on America’s top awards for
achievement by high school students are highly relevant. According to Unz, Asian-American
students have achieved a very high representation in National Merit Scholarship (NMS)
semifinalists, a major indicator of graduating high school students’ academic performance. In
addition, over the last two decades Asian-American students have also significantly increased
their representation in the U.S. Math Olympiad Teams, U.S. Physics Olympiad Winners, Science
Olympiad Winners, Siemens Science AP Winners, Intel Science Talent Search Finalists: ix
“Although Asians represented only about 11 percent of California high school students, they
constituted almost 60 percent of the [National Merit Scholars]… In Texas, Asians are just 3.8
percent of the population but were over a quarter of the NMS semifinalists in 2010, while the 2.4
percent of Florida Asians provided between 10 percent and 16 percent of the top students…
Asian over-representation was enormous [in New York]: the Asian 7.3 percent of the
5

 population—many of them impoverished immigrant families—accounted for almost one-third of
all top scoring New York students.”
“America’s eight largest states contain nearly half our total population as well as over 60 percent
of all Asian-Americans, and each has at least one NMS semifinalist list available for the years
2010–2012. Asians account for just 6 percent of the population in these states, but contribute
almost one-third of all the names on these rosters of high performing students. Even this result
may be a substantial underestimate, since over half these Asians are found in gigantic California,
where extremely stiff academic competition has driven the qualifying NMS semifinalist
threshold score to nearly the highest in the country; if students were selected based on a single
nationwide standard, Asian numbers would surely be much higher. This pattern extends to the
aggregate of the twenty-five states whose lists are available, with Asians constituting 5 percent
of the total population but almost 28 percent of semifinalists. Extrapolating these state results to
the national total, we would expect 25–30 percent of America’s highest scoring high school
seniors to be of Asian origin. ”
“This evidence of a massively disproportionate Asian presence among top-performing students
only increases if we examine the winners of national academic competitions, especially those in
mathematics and science, where judging is the most objective. Each year, America picks its five
strongest students to represent our country in the International Math Olympiad, and during the
three decades since 1980, some 34 percent of these team members have been Asian-American,
with the corresponding figure for the International Computing Olympiad being 27 percent. The
Intel Science Talent Search, begun in 1942 under the auspices of the Westinghouse Corporation,
is America’s most prestigious high school science competition, and since 1980 some 32 percent
of the 1320 finalists have been of Asian ancestry (see Appendix F)
Given that Asians accounted for just 1.5 percent of the population in 1980 and often lived in
relatively impoverished immigrant families, the longer-term historical trends are even more
striking. Asians were less than 10 percent of U.S. Math Olympiad winners during the 1980s, but
rose to a striking 58 percent of the total during the last thirteen years 2000–2012. For the
Computing Olympiad, Asian winners averaged about 20 percent of the total during most of the
1990s and 2000s, but grew to 50 percent during 2009–2010 and a remarkable 75 percent during
2011–2012.
The statistical trend for the Science Talent Search finalists, numbering many thousands of top
science students, has been the clearest: Asians constituted 22 percent of the total in the 1980s, 29
percent in the 1990s, 36 percent in the 2000s, and 64 percent in the 2010s. In particular science
subjects, the Physics Olympiad winners follow a similar trajectory, with Asians accounting for
23 percent of the winners during the 1980s, 25 percent during the 1990s, 46 percent during the
2000s, and a remarkable 81 percent since 2010. The 2003–2012 Biology Olympiad winners were
68 percent Asian and Asians took an astonishing 90 percent of the top spots in the recent
Chemistry Olympiads. Some 61 percent of the Siemens AP Awards from 2002–2011 went to
Asians, including thirteen of the fourteen top national prizes.”
Very convincing evidence for the qualifications of Asian-American students is found in the
numbers of such students named U.S. Presidential Scholars, selected by the Department of
6

 Education on an annual basis. It is one of the highest honors a high school student can obtain.
According to its website, “Candidates are evaluated on their academic achievement, personal
characteristics, leadership and service activities, and an analysis of their essay.” By these
criteria, which essentially mirrors the criteria Harvard says applies to its Holistic Admission
Approach, one would expect the percentage of Asian-Americans selected as Presidential
Scholars to predict the percentage admitted to Harvard College--if the Harvard admissions
process were implemented fairly.
We conducted an analysis of the Presidential Scholar winners of the last five years (2010-2014).
Based on their family names, there are approximately 218 Asian-American students who
received this prestigious awards, out of the 703 total selected--or approximately 31%. This is
actually an underestimation of Asian-American students among the Presidential Scholars
because a student born in a family with an Asian mother, but non-Asian father is not counted as
Asian in this analysis.
Based on above data, ranging from National Merit Scholarship (NMS) semifinalists, major high
school science competition winners and the Presidential Scholars, the most prestigious high
school award based on an all-rounded evaluation, Asian-American students have not only
maintained but also improved their qualifications for admissions to America’s elite universities.
2.3 Social Stereotypes and Prejudices towards Asian-Americans versus Actual AsianAmerican Abilities
Unfortunately, even given the above achievements, as one of the smallest racial group in the
United States, Asian-Americans are possibly the least understood racial group by American
society because of the large cultural gaps existing between the East and the West. This leads to
stereotypes and racial bias towards Asian-Americans.
The followings are the most notable stereotypes which tend to negatively impact AsianAmerican applicants to America’s elite universities.
2.3.1 Stereotype 1: Asian-Americans lack creativity and critical thinking
This is a widely spread, often exaggerated stereotype, reinforced by some biased articles
published in American media. An objective view of the facts compels a contrary conclusion.
Today, many Asian-Americans have become the leading engineers in America’s high tech
industries, department chairs of many American universities, and technology leaders at many
research and development institutes. They are the creators of a large percentage of American
technologic innovations. So far, Asian-Americans have produced 12 Nobel laureates in Physics,
Chemistry, Physiology and Medicine, which is more than 4.4% of the total 273 American Nobel
laureates in the above fields since the Nobel Prize debuted in 1901. This is quite an
accomplishment because the Asian-American population in the United States was well below 1%
before the 1970’s and did not reach 3% until 1990. In recent decades, due to the increase of welleducated Asian immigrants, the achievements of Asian-Americans are even more impressive.
According to Thompson Reuter, among the world’s top 20 material scientists, Asian-Americans
number 11, or 45%. x In the MIT Technology Review’s “35 Innovators Under 35 in 2014,” xi
there are 12 Asian-Americans, or 34% of the total. Asian-American winners of the Intel Science
7

 Talent Search constitute more than 30% of the total; and each is credited with at least one
scientific breakthrough or technological innovations. xii
Asian-Americans have also demonstrated their creativities in other arenas. They include worldfamous architects I. M. Pei and Maya Lin, world-class cellist Yo-Yo Ma, and violinist Sara
Chang, Oscar winning director Ang Lee, renowned cinematographers James Wong Howe and
Hiro Narita, as well as fashion designers Vera Wang and Jason Wu.
In the business world, Asian-American creativity is easily demonstrated, manifested especially
by the number of technology ventures founded by Asian-Americans. According to a 2012 study
released by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Asian-Americans founded more than 42%
of engineering and technology companies between 2006 and 2012. xiii
America has provided a great playing field in which many talented Asians immigrants have
demonstrated their innovation. The truth of matter is, Asian-Americans are among the most
innovative and creative racial groups in the United States.
2.3.2 Stereotype 2: Asian-Americans lack leadership skill
When some people claim Asian-Americans lack leadership skills, they tend to use the number of
CEO positions Asian-American hold in American’s large corporations. Actually, one major
factor for the relative small number of Asian-American CEO’s is that most adult AsianAmerican immigrants were born abroad (74%) xiv and the majority of them immigrated to the
United States based on their specialization in science and engineering. Most American
companies tend to pick their CEO’s from marketing or finance majors, therefore lowering the
chances for Asian-Americans. In most companies where Asian-Americans are a small minority,
there is also a significant bamboo ceiling that prevents Asian-Americans from reaching the top.
Other factors are language barriers and lack of cultural acceptance. For example, in American
culture, people tend to express their feelings and thoughts more directly and forcefully. In most
Asian cultures, people are more inclined to express their opinions in a more reserved manner.
For Americans who do not fully understand Asian cultures, this can be misinterpreted as a lack
of communication skills. Even with significant cultural barriers, many Asian-Americans have
managed to rise to the top, include Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi,
former CEO of Starz Corporation John Sie and former CEO of Avon Corporation Andrea Jung.
A better measure of Asian-American leadership is found in their entrepreneurship. Data indicates
that immigrants are more likely to start companies than the general population in the United
States, and Asian-Americans make up a significant portion of this group. As discussed in the
above section, Asian-Americans founded more than 42% of engineering and technology
companies between 2006 and 2012. Notable examples include Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang, the
founding CEO of Sun Microsystems Vinod Khosla, Founder of Bose Corporation Amar Bose,
and cofounder of YouTube Steve Chen. This is a clear indication of leadership and the
innovative spirit of Asian-Americans. In addition to high tech, Asian-Americans have also
established a large number of businesses in restaurants, gas stations, hotels etc. Leadership is an
essential quality required by all entrepreneurs. Asian-Americans have demonstrated it
abundantly.

8

 2.3.3 Stereotype 3: Asian-American students spend too much time on study and do not
spend enough time in extracurricular activities
Most Asian-American families believe a solid academic foundation is essential for students to
advance their education. Students are encouraged to pursue academic excellence and excel in the
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) fields. However, U.S. academic
performance has dropped over the last decades, ranking only 30th in math and 23rd in Science in
the 2012 PISA international student assessment. As a result, the United States cannot educate
enough engineers and scientists to meet its rapidly growing needs in its high tech industries and
has to attract well-educated immigrants, most of which are Asians, to fill the available positions.
It is a great irony that while America’s economy needs Asian immigrants whose educations were
built upon a proper emphasis on academic performance, some American newsmedia and some
individuals blame Asian-American students for putting too much emphasis on academics,
creating the social stereotype that Asian-American children are ‘nerds.” It is an example of how
media and some individuals use their own, improper standards to judge Asian-American students
who are doing the right thing.
Even in the area of extracurricular activities, contrary to the stereotype, there are no data to
indicate that Asian-American students are doing less. As cited by Students for Fair Admissions
Inc. in their complaint against Harvard University, xv “Studies also have shown that highachieving Asian-American students are equally, if not more, qualified than other racial groups
with regard to non-academic criteria. At the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), over
several years, undergraduate admissions readers assigned each applicant three types of scores:
‘academic achievement’ (principally high school grades, AP courses, and standardized test
scores); ‘life challenges’ (mainly socioeconomic background); and ‘personal achievement’ (such
as leadership, musical ability, and community service). These three scores jointly determined
virtually all admissions decisions. See Peter Arcidiacono, Thomas Espenshade, Stacy Hawkins,
and Richard Sander, published a study on undergraduate A Conversation on the Nature, Effects,
and Future of Affirmative Action in Higher Education Admissions, Pennsylvania Journal of
Constitutional Law (Fall 2014). … The data cover over 100,000 undergraduate applicants to
UCLA over three years and show absolutely no correlation between race and ‘personal
achievement.’”
Very importantly, because most Asian-American students are educated in the United States, they
have benefited from strengths of the American education systems, such as an emphasis on
creativity and social skill development. It is wrong to generalize and to assume Asian–American
students will inevitably have the same weaknesses some of their parents had, if any.
In such a broad cultural context, published studies have indicated that admission officers at
Harvard and other elite universities have allowed popular stereotypes and racial bias against
Asian-Americans to unduly influence their assessment of Asian-American applicants because a
significant portion of their criteria are subjective in nature.

9

 Stereotypes
Lack of
creativity/critical
thinking
Lack of artistic
talent

Less risk taking

Lack of
leadership skills

Too much
emphasis on
academics

Not enough
extracurriculars

Facts
12 Nobel laureates in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology and Medicine
(4.4%); 11 out of 20 top material scientists in the world (45%); 12
out of 35 Innovators Under 35 in 2014; 30% winners of Intel
Science Talent Search.
World-famous architects I. M. Pei and Maya Lin, world-class cellist
Yo-Yo Ma, violinist Sara Chang, Oscar winning director Ang Lee,
renowned cinematographers James Wong Howe and Hiro Narita,
fashion designers Vera Wang and Jason Wu.
Founded over 42% of engineering and technology companies
between 2006 and 2012. Yahoo’s Jerry Yang, the founding CEO of
Sun Microsystems Vinod Khosla, founder of the Bose Corporation
Amar Bose, cofounder of YouTube Steve Chen.
1) Objective factors limiting Asian-Americans becoming CEOs of
large corporations: 74% Asian-American are foreign born, most
specializing in science and high tech; language barrier, bamboo
ceiling and cultural acceptance.
2) Many managed to reach the top: Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella,
Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi, former CEO of Starz Corporation John
Sie, former CEO of Avon Corporation Andrea Jung.
3) Proven entrepreneurship: Founded over 42% of engineering and
technology companies between 2006 and 2012. Owners of
restaurants, hotels, gas stations etc.
American student performances dropped compared to other
countries based on PISA international student assessments. The U.S.
can’t educate enough scientists & engineers and relies on
immigrants to support high tech industries. Asian-Americans
actually have the proper emphasis on academics.
Studies show high-achieving Asian-American students are equally,
if not more, qualified than other racial groups with regard to nonacademic criteria. Data covering more that 100,000 undergraduate
applicants to UCLA over three years shows absolutely no correlation
between race and ‘personal achievement.’

2.4 Harvard University’s Admission Selection Approach
Harvard University’s admissions process is explained by Students for Fair Admissions Inc. in its
complaint against Harvard University, xvi
“175. During an admissions cycle, the Harvard Admissions Committee reviews each student’s
admissions materials. Those materials include: (1) the Common Application or Universal
College Application, including an essay, and the required parts of the Harvard Supplement; (2)
the high school transcript, school report, and mid-year school report—all submitted by a
student’s guidance counselor; (3) standardized test scores—submitted by the College Board; (4)
10

 teacher and guidance counselor recommendations; (5) optional on-campus and/or off-campus
interviewer evaluation; (6) optional personal statements (found on the Harvard Supplement) in
addition to the required essays; and (7) optional music tapes, artwork slides, or samples of
academic work.”
“176. Harvard gathers information about the race and ethnicity of its applicants through
numerous ways.” It includes applicants to
1)
Fill out a Common Application which has the option of disclosing his or her racial
identity (Asian is a selection choice) and require applicants to identify their parents’
first and last name, the parents’ former last names, and their country of birth. Or
2)
Fill out the Universal College Application which has the option of disclosing his or her
racial identity (Asian is a selection choice) and require applicants to identify their
parents’ first and last name, the parents’ former last names, and their country of birth;
and “languages spoken in your home”.
3)
Encourage applicants to discuss race or culture in their essays.
During the review process, Harvard University takes a “Holistic Approach” in evaluating
applicants. According to Harvard University’s recent response to the lawsuit filed by Students
for Fair Admissions Inc., xvii
“186. Defendant (Harvard University) admits that the Harvard College admissions office
considers applicants for transfer admission in a holistic manner and that, as with applicants for
early or regular admission, it considers each applicant’s background and personal characteristics,
including—where relevant—the applicant’s race or ethnicity as it bears on the holistic review, as
one among many factors that it evaluates holistically in determining whether to make an offer of
admission.”
“196. Defendant (Harvard University) admits that the admissions committee considers each
applicant’s background and personal characteristics, including—where relevant—the applicant’s
race or ethnicity as it bears on the holistic review, as one among many factors that it evaluates
holistically in determining whether to make an offer of admission.”
Though Harvard University does not reveal publicly any aspect of its deliberative or decisional
admissions process other than the end result, what we can see from the above evidence are:
1. Subjective criteria such as applicant’s background and personal characteristics are a large
part of the Harvard admissions selection processes although it also employs objective
criteria such as the applicant’s test scores and high school GPA’s. This leaves significant
room for human stereotypes and racial bias to influence the admission decisions if it is
not handled properly;
2. Race is a factor in Harvard’s admission process and in its evaluation of applicants.
The combination of the above two factors allows Harvard to make very subjective decisions that
lead to discrimination against Asian-Americans, which are summarized in the following section.

11

 3. HARVARD UNIVERSITY’S DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIANAMERICANS AND HARM TO ASIAN-AMERICAN FAMILIES
3.1 Harvard University’s Discrimination against Asian-Americans
Harvard University’s discrimination against Asian-American applicants was first protested by
Asian-American communities in 1980’s. In July 1988, the Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) of the
U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation of the treatment of Asian-American
applicants at Harvard to determine whether Harvard was engaging in discrimination in violation
of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. After two years’ of investigation, in 1990 OCR released a
roundly criticized report that blames the differential on legacy preferences and found that the
differential admission rates were not the product of racial or ethnic discrimination.
It is noteworthy that this conclusion was drawn before the surge of Asian-American collegeready students and improvement of their qualifications as illustrated in section 2.2.
However, based on published studies, after the OCR investigation, Harvard has not stopped its
discrimination against Asian-Americans. Over the last decade, the discrimination against AsianAmerican applicants has caught the attention of many scholars.
Daniel Golden, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Wall Street Journal reporter, conducted an extensive
study of the corruption in American elite universities’ admissions decisions. In his 2007 book,
The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges —and
Who Gets Left Outside, Golden found that the discrimination against Asian-Americans by
Harvard and other elite universities was so severe that he dedicated a special chapter “The New
Jews” to compare it to the discrimination suffered by Jews in 1920’s and 1930’s. xviii
Golden’s book gave various qualitative examples as to how Harvard and other elite schools use
various stereotypes to discriminate against Asian-American applicants such as “being quiet”,
“focusing on math and science”, and “play a music instrument.” He pointed out, “Given the free
rein by the federal decision (OCR’s 1990 decision on alleged discrimination by Harvard towards
Asian-Americans), most elite universities have maintained a triple standard in college
admissions, setting the bar highest for Asians, next for whites and lowest for blacks and
Hispanics.”
In 2009, Princeton professor Thomas J. Espenshade and his coauthor, Alexandra Radford
published their book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, in which they document the role of
race in elite American undergraduate admissions based on exhaustive application data on a group
of three elite public and four elite private colleges.
In their analysis of admissions rate by race and SAT score, as illustrated in the following chart,
Asians have the lowest acceptance rate for each test score bracket, lower than Whites, Blacks
and Hispanic. xix

12

 According to their modeling analysis, Asian applicants have 67% lower odds of admission than
white applicants with comparable test scores. Using white students as a baseline, they look at
how much of a bump or penalty students receive in terms of SAT scores on the basis of their
race:

They found that when applying to top private universities an Asian-American student has to
score 140 point higher than a White student, 270 points higher than a Hispanic student and 450
points higher than a Black student on the SAT to be on equal footing. Put another way, if a top
private university such as Harvard accepts white students with an SAT mean score of 2160, its
mean score for accepting Asian-American students would be 2300, 140 additional points.
In 2012, Ron Unz provided another compelling analysis of this issue. xx He made a direct
comparison between population growth of college-age (18-21 years old) Asian-Americans, the
Asian-American enrollment of Harvard and other Ivy League Colleges, and found “the share of
Asians at Harvard peaked at over 20 percent in 1993, then immediately declined and thereafter
remained roughly constant at a level 3–5 points lower.” The largely constant Asian numbers at
these elite colleges are particularly strange when we consider that the underlying population of
Asians in America has been anything but static, instead growing at the fastest pace of any
13

 American racial group, having increased by almost 50 percent during the last decade, and more
than doubling since 1993.”
As discussed in Section 2.2, multiple data indicate that Asian-American academic achievement
trends were rising at an impressive pace. However, the total enrollment of Asian-Americans at
Harvard has been basically fixed. As a result, as Unz puts it, “the relative enrollment of Asians at
Harvard was plummeting, dropping by over half during the last twenty years, with a range of
similar declines also occurring at Yale, Cornell, and most other Ivy League universities.”
As a comparison, Unz shows that Caltech, another elite university which does not take race as
consideration and where students’ academic performances are more properly weighed, AsianAmerican enrollment has a positive growth, basically commensurate with the growth of AsianAmericans in the age group of 18-21.

Trends of Asian enrollment at Caltech and the Ivy League universities,
compared with growth of Asian college-age population; Asian age cohort
population figures are based on Census CPS, and given the small sample size,
are subject to considerable yearly statistical fluctuations. Source: Appendices B
and C, xxi

All three major studies have been widely reported by American media. One by one they provide
stronger and stronger evidence to illustrate that discriminations against Asian-Americans exist at
Harvard and other Ivy League Colleges.
Besides the above three major studies, other scholars have also conducted research on Harvard’s
and other elite schools’ discrimination against Asian-Americans. They include Dr. Richard
Sander, a professor of law at UCLA, and Medha Uppala, a graduate student in statistics at
UCLA, who recently co-authored a working paper titled The Evolution of SES Diversity in the
Applicant Pool of Highly Selective Universities, 1994-2012. xxii

14

 As described by Students for Fair Admissions Inc. in its complaint against Harvard University,
“As an initial matter, the paper finds that Asian-Americans are being admitted to these schools at
a far lower rate than the rate at which they apply. The paper notes that for ‘three of the most
selective Ivy League colleges,’ the average racial makeup of all domestic score senders between
2008 and 2012 is 27.3 percent Asian-American, 11.3 percent African American, 12.5 percent
Hispanic, 40.4 percent non-Hispanic White, and 8.5 percent other race or non-identified. Over
this same time period, however, Asian-Americans represented only 17-20 percent of the admitted
students. No other racial or ethnic group at these schools is as underrepresented relative to its
application numbers as are Asian-Americans. Indeed, no other racial or ethnic group comes even
remotely close to this level of underrepresentation.”
If we summarized above studies, we can draw the following conclusions.
1. Harvard and other Ivy League Colleges have discriminated against Asian-Americans in
their college admission processes, in the form of fixed enrollment numbers, and under the
influence of racial stereotypes and prejudices. There is actually a drop in the percentage
of Asian-American enrollment based on growing numbers of qualified Asian-Americans
applicants.
2. Asian-Americans are likely to be discriminated against in elite universities where race is
used as a factor in the admission processes
3. Among all major racial groups, Asian-Americans are the most discriminated against by
Harvard and other Ivy League Colleges in their college admission processes.
We believe that a racially based admission process has played a major role in Harvard and
other Ivy League colleges’ discrimination against Asian-American applicants. Racial
discrimination based on racial quotas, stereotypes and prejudices are other important
factors because the discrimination Asian-Americans has suffered is more severe than that
suffered by white Americans, another racial group not favored by Affirmative Action.
Faced with such severe discrimination, many Asian-American organizations have voiced their
rejection of such as unfair treatment of Asian-American students. In addition, Asian-American
students who suffered from such discrimination have filed complaints to Office of Civil Rights
(“OCR”) of the U.S. Department of Education. In 2006, Jian Li, a Chinese-American student
filed a complaint against Princeton University. In 2012, an Indian-American student filed a
complaint against Harvard University and Princeton University. In 2013, Michael Wang, another
Chinese American student, filed a complaint against Yale University and Princeton University.
Most significantly, on November 17, 2014, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. filed a federal
lawsuit against Harvard University.
Though evidence shows other Ivy League Schools have also engaged in discrimination against
Asian-American students, this complaint is limited to Harvard University for now based on the
overwhelming evidence uncovered by Golden, Espenshade & Radford, Unz, Sander, as well as
that compiled by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.

15

 3.2 Harm to Asian-American Families
Since Asian-Americans care deeply about their children’s future and regard good education as
the primarily way to achieve a good future, the discrimination by Harvard University and other
Ivy League Colleges has caused tremendous harm to Asian-American families. Following are a
few aspects of this harm:
3.2.1 Creating additional study pressure and stress for Asian-American students
As Unz rightly put it, “There may even be a logical connection between these two contradictory
trends. On the one hand, America over the last two decades has produced a rapidly increasing
population of college-age Asians, whose families are increasingly affluent, well-educated, and
eager to secure an elite education for their children. But on the other hand, it appears that these
leading academic institutions have placed a rather strict upper limit on actual Asian enrollment,
forcing these Asian students to compete more and more fiercely for a very restricted number of
openings. This has sparked a massive Asian-American arms-race in academic performance at
high schools throughout the country, as seen above in the skyrocketing math and science
competition results. When a far greater volume of applicants is squeezed into a pipeline of fixed
size, the pressure can grow enormously.” xxiii
In addition to pressure and stress, it also creates a vicious cycle for many Asian-American
students: The higher the bar Harvard and other elite universities raise for Asian-Americans, the
more they have to study. Therefore, Asian-American students have to forego opportunities to
pursue other interests and recreations. It makes them fit closer to the social stereotype that AsianAmerican children are ‘nerds.” Consequently, Harvard University and other elite universities
have more reasons to deny their applications for admission. In this way, Asian-American
students are being further victimized in this vicious cycle of discrimination.
3.2.2 Negatively impact Asian-American students’ trust in American institutions, selfidentification and mental health
Most Asian-Americans, regardless of whether they are new immigrants or have settled many
decades ago, came to America in the belief that America offers them better opportunities for
their children. However, the severe discrimination by Harvard and other Ivy League Colleges has
created a significant shadow and distrust in many Asian-Americans’ minds: Because they are
Asian, they are discriminated against by America’s elite universities and punished because they
work hard.
In fact, most Asian-American parents, college counselors, and college guidance services such as
Princeton Review know that Asian-American students will be discriminated against when
applying to Harvard or other Ivy League Colleges. It is widely recommended that they not check
the racial identification box. But this does not reduce the fears of most Asian-American
applicants because if their fathers are Asians, their family names will reveal their AsianAmerican identity. Also, if the university asks for an interview they cannot hide their Asian
identity.
The fear of being discriminated against by Harvard and other Ivy League Colleges has reinforced
the negative image of Asian-Americans, which stems from many racial stereotypes and
16

 prejudices as discussed in Section 2.3. This directly leads to a self-identity issue among many
teenage Asian-Americans. According to an article “Admission Considerations in Higher
Education among Asian-Americans” published by Yi-Chen (Jenny) Wu of University of Georgia,
“The fear of self-identifying as Asian can affect one's racial/ethnic identity development and
have an impact on one's mental health. Asians who did not possess a strong racial/ethnic identity
rated lower scores on self-actualization and acceptance (Iwamoto & Liu, 2010), reported lower
self-esteem (Tummala-Narra, Inman, & Ettigi, 2011), tended to have negative attitudes toward
schooling, lower academic achievement (Lee, 2009), and could not manage race-related stress
well (Yoo & Lee, 2005; Yip et al., 2008; Tummala-Narra et al., 2011). The denial of Asian
heritage may also lead to the denial of Asian values, which may create cultural gaps and
intergeneration conflict between the students and their parents (Ahn, Kim, & Park, 2009; Park,
Kim, Chiang, & Ju, 2010). The psychological effects of this type of conflict include emotional
distance between parents and children, interpersonal problems, lack of self-confidence and
assertiveness, high suicidal risk, and anxiety and depression (Lee, Choe, Kim, & Ngo, 2000;
Lowinger & Kwok, 2001; Kuroki & Tilley, 2012).” xxiv
3.2.3 Creating racial barriers between Asian-Americans and other racial groups
Most Asian-Americans want to merge into the American melting pot and to develop pleasant
relationship with other racial groups. However, the discrimination by Harvard University and
other Ivy League Colleges is creating a racial divide between Asian-Americans and other racial
groups.
Blessed by a pro-education culture, many Asian-American students have excellent academic
performance. One of the volunteer activities they frequently engage in is tutoring students from
other races. Many Asian parents have an extremely hard time telling their children that they must
confront the reality that as Asian-American, their own chances of getting admitted into
America’s elite universities are far less than that of the students they intend to help simply
because they are of the “wrong” race.
3.3 Having Suffered Historical Discrimination, It Is Not Justifiable that Asian-Americans
Are Now the Worst Affected Victims of Racially Based Admissions
In American history, Asian-Americans have suffered major discrimination. The foremost
example is the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. According to the History Channel:
“The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first significant law restricting immigration into the
United States. Those on the West Coast were especially prone to attribute declining wages and
economic ills on the despised Chinese workers. Although the Chinese composed only 0.002
percent of the nation’s population, Congress passed the exclusion act to placate worker demands
and assuage prevalent concerns about maintaining white ‘racial purity.’
The statute of 1882 suspended Chinese immigration for ten years and declared the Chinese as
ineligible for naturalization. Chinese workers already in the country challenged the
constitutionality of the discriminatory act, but their efforts failed. The act was renewed in 1892
for another ten years, and in 1902 Chinese immigration was made permanently illegal. The

17

 legislation proved very effective, and the Chinese population in the United States sharply
declined.
American experience with Chinese exclusion spurred later movements for immigration
restriction against other “undesirable” groups such as Middle Easterners, Hindu and East Indians,
and the Japanese. The Chinese themselves remained ineligible for citizenship until 1943.” xxv
Another significant civil rights violation aimed at Asian Americans happened during World War
II. Japanese Americans were forced to relocate into internment camps. As described by the
History Channel:
“In 1942, thousands of Japanese Americans living in the United States are forced into war
relocation camps.
Two months after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt
signed Executive Order 9066 ordering all Japanese-Americans to evacuate the West Coast. This
resulted in the relocation of approximately 120,000 people, many of whom were American
citizens, to one of 10 internment camps located across the country. Traditional family structure
was upended within the camp, as American-born children were solely allowed to hold positions
of authority. Some Japanese-American citizens of were allowed to return to the West Coast
beginning in 1945, and the last camp closed in March 1946. In 1988, Congress awarded
restitution payments to each survivor of the camps.” xxvi
These instances of racial discrimination and civil rights violation imposed many hardships on
Asian-Americans. For example, during the sixty years when The Chinese Exclusion Act was
effective, many Chinese Americans were unable to get their families united. Some had to wait
tens of years to do so. Their new-born children could not obtain American citizenship.
With strong perseverance and blessed by our pro-education cultural heritage, most AsianAmerican families managed to climb out of poverty, and improved their education significantly.
However, today, they are penalized again by their diligence and their support of their children’s
education.
For many new Asian immigrants, the situation is particularly sad. Most of them came here as
foreign students, selected by American universities based on their outstanding academic and
other credentials. They excelled academically in the United States, and decided to stay here in
their pursuit of the American dream. Many of them have become essential contributors to
American high tech industries, a primary engine for American economic prosperity. However,
when their children reach college-age, these parents suddenly realize that their children have a
significant barrier to overcome. They have to study much harder than students of other races in
order to get into America’s elite universities, including Harvard. Because of the barrier, their
children may not be able to obtain similar levels of education to those they obtained.
Historically, Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans have been victims of racial
discrimination and civil rights violations. When Affirmative Action in college admissions was

18

 implemented, unfortunately, Asian-Americans became victims again. Asian-Americans do not
deserve to become the largest victim of racially based college admissions.

19

 4. DETAILED EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION AND SPECIFIC
LAWS VIOLATED
4.1 Evidence Compiled by Students for Fair Admissions Inc. in its Complaint against
Harvard University
In its complaint against Harvard University, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. has compiled
comprehensive evidence on how Harvard University discriminates against Asian-Americans
during its admission process: xxvii
“VIII. HARVARD CURRENTLY ENGAGES IN INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST ASIAN-AMERICAN APPLICANTS.
200. Harvard intentionally discriminates against Asian-American applicants. This discrimination
is shown through both direct and circumstantial evidence, including statistical studies of
Harvard’s admissions decisions. These studies confirm what Asian-American applicants and
their parents already know: Harvard intentionally and artificially limits the number of AsianAmericans to whom it will offer admission.
A. There Is Decisive Statistical Evidence That Harvard Discriminates Against AsianAmerican Applicants.
201. Each year, Harvard publishes a significant amount of data concerning its application
process. Among other things, Harvard releases admitted student data and enrolled student data
broken down by racial category.
202. Harvard used to allow the public to examine admission rates by race as well. More recently,
however, Harvard began keeping these figures secret. Harvard has never offered an explanation
for this decision.
203. By contrast, the prestigious University of California system routinely releases information
about its applicant pool broken down by racial category, which allows the public to examine
admission rates by race.
204. Nonetheless, significant data regarding Harvard’s applicant pool has been made publicly
available.
205. This statistical evidence establishes that Harvard is intentionally discriminating against
Asian-Americans by making it far more difficult for Asian-Americans than for any other racial
and ethnic group of students to gain admission to Harvard.
206. Princeton professor Thomas J. Espenshade and his coauthor, Alexandra Radford, conducted
an authoritative study of the role of race in elite American undergraduate admissions for their
book No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, which was published in 2009. Espenshade and
Radford gathered exhaustive application data on a group of three elite public and four elite
private colleges.
20

 207. Controlling for a wide variety of academic, demographic, and personal characteristics,
Espenshade and Radford found that Asian-American students were dramatically less likely to be
admitted than otherwise similar students who identified themselves as white or Caucasian. In
fact, Espenshade and Radford’s analysis showed that the negative odds-ratio affecting AsianAmericans relative to Whites was larger than the positive odds-ratio affecting African Americans
relative to Whites.
208. The Espenshade-Radford study also expressed the admissions penalty facing AsianAmericans in terms of SAT-point equivalents. The authors reported that Asian-Americans
needed SAT scores that were about 140 points higher than white students, all other quantifiable
variables being equal, to get into elite schools. Thus, if a white student needed a 1320 SAT score
to be admitted to one of these schools, an Asian-American needed a 1460 SAT score to be
admitted. That is a massive penalty given that marginal differences in SAT scores are magnified
among those students competing for admission to the most elite universities, as there is less room
at the very top of the SAT scale to differentiate between applicants.
209. Recent statistical evidence reveals that discrimination against Asian-Americans at Harvard
is even more severe than the Espenshade-Radford study found.
210. In recent years, The Harvard Crimson has been surveying incoming freshmen. In 2013,
nearly 80% of the incoming class of 2017 responded to its survey. According to the survey, the
average SAT of respondents was 2237 (on a 2400-scale), while the average SAT of individual
ethnic groups varied widely: 2299 for East Asians and Indians, 2107 for African-Americans, and
2142 for Native Americans). Given this reporting, the average SAT for non-Hispanic Whites is
at or somewhat below the overall median.
211. This class average (2237) corresponds to roughly the 99.5 percentile of the SAT, meaning
that Harvard draws half of its class from students scoring in the top 1/2 of 1 percent of the SAT I
distribution. The ‘East Asian and Indian’ average of 2299 corresponds to the 99.9 percentile of
the SAT, meaning that Harvard draws about half of this ethnic group from the top 1/10 of 1
percent of the SAT I distribution. That is a dramatically higher standard of academic
performance. Harvard requires much more of its Asian-American applicants than it requires of
other races and ethnicities.
212. Dr. Richard Sander, a professor of law at UCLA, and Medha Uppala, a graduate student in
statistics at UCLA, recently co-authored a working paper titled The Evolution of SES Diversity in
the Applicant Pool of Highly Selective Universities, 1994-2012. In this working paper, Dr.
Sander and Ms. Uppala examine data on several Ivy League colleges that shed valuable light on
the admissions practices at these schools. The paper examines the degree to which elite colleges,
including Harvard, have expanded their access in recent years to students with low
socioeconomic status. The primary data source is a widely used database from the College
Board, which biannually compiles anonymized data on 100,000 SAT-takers nationwide. The
paper reveals startling application patterns from the aggregated data that it reports, which, in
conjunction with other data sources, make manifest Harvard’s massive intentional discrimination
against Asian-Americans.
21

 213. As an initial matter, the paper finds that Asian-Americans are being admitted to these
schools at a far lower rate than the rate at which they apply. The paper notes that for ‘three of the
most selective Ivy League colleges,’ the average racial makeup of all domestic score senders
between 2008 and 2012 is 27.3 percent Asian-American, 11.3 percent African American, 12.5
percent Hispanic, 40.4 percent non-Hispanic White, and 8.5 percent other race or non-identified.
Over this same time period, however, Asian-Americans represented only 17-20 percent of the
admitted students. No other racial or ethnic group at these schools is as underrepresented relative
to its application numbers as are Asian-Americans. Indeed, no other racial or ethnic group comes
even remotely close to this level of underrepresentation.
214. Thus, if Harvard admitted randomly from its applicant pool, the number of AsianAmericans in its entering freshman class would be far higher than it actually is.
215. These data alone provide strong evidence that Harvard is engaging in intentional
discrimination against Asian-American applicants absent some factor that makes this gross
disparity explainable on non-discriminatory grounds.
216. Moreover, the paper’s data shows that Asian-American applicants have, on average,
stronger qualifications for admission than any other racial or ethnic group applying to top Ivy
League Colleges.
217. Ironically, then, the most underrepresented group of admitted students relative to the
applicant pool is the most overrepresented racial or ethnic group among top academic
performers.
218. Among ‘three of the most selective Ivy League colleges,’ the paper’s data shows that,
during the 2008, 2010, and 2012 admissions cycles, Asian-Americans, on average, constituted
nearly 39 percent of all domestic SAT-takers who (a) had scores of 2100 or higher and (b) sent
their scores to these schools.
219. The Harvard Crimson survey, as does every other available public source, confirms that the
vast majority of Harvard’s students come from this pool of applicants (with SAT scores of 2100
or higher).
220. Remarkably, students with higher test scores were even more likely to be Asian-Americans.
In 2008, Asian-Americans made up 46 percent of domestic Harvard score-senders with SAT
scores above 2200 (a range from which Harvard draws more than half of its students). In
addition, Asian-Americans made up an even higher percentage of the very top students; they
accounted for 55 percent of domestic Harvard score-senders with SAT scores above 2300. These
patterns are very similar across all of the top Ivy League Colleges. In 2008-12, for the three Ivy
League Colleges analyzed by Dr.Sander and Ms. Uppala, Asian-Americans made up 38.9
percent of all domestic scoresenders with SAT scores above 2100; 45 percent of domestic scoresenders with SAT scores above 2200; and over 51 percent of domestic score-senders with SAT
scores above 2300. These data, in combination with other publicly available data, demonstrate
that Asian-Americans admitted to Harvard are vastly underrepresented—by a factor of half or
22

 even two-thirds—relative to the number of applications from Asian-Americans that Harvard
receives.
221. There is no reason to doubt that Harvard is one of the three Ivy League colleges in Dr.
Sander’s and Ms. Uppala’s analysis. Harvard is among the most selective colleges in the Ivy
League (if not the most selective). But even if Harvard is not one of the colleges they examined,
its patterns of Asian-American enrollment and selectivity closely match those of the ‘three of the
most selective Ivy League colleges’ in Dr. Sander’s and Ms. Uppala’s analysis such that there is
no reason to believe their conclusions would not apply to Harvard.
222. In all events, Harvard’s data is highly consistent with all other Ivy League Colleges, which
as Table A shows, inexplicably enroll Asian-Americans in remarkably similar numbers year after
year after year.
Table A
Ivy League Enrollment (Asian-Americans)
School

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Brown

15%

16%

15%

15%

14%

12%

14%

Columbia

17%

17%

16%

16%

16%

16%

18%

Cornell

16%

17%

17%

16%

16%

16%

16%

Dartmouth

14%

14%

15%

15%

14%

14%

14%

Harvard

15%

17%

17%

16%

17%

18%

18%

Penn

17%

17%

18%

18%

18%

18%

18%

Princeton

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

19%

17%

Yale

14%

14%

15%

15%

15%

16%

16%

223. Various additional studies confirm that Harvard is intentionally discriminating against
Asian-American applicants and that it is doing so in much the same manner as it discriminated
against Jewish applicants decades ago.
224. In 2012, Ron Unz, who holds an undergraduate physics degree from Harvard and studied
theoretical physics at Stanford, conducted an extensive study of Ivy League admissions. See Ron
Unz, The Myth of American Meritocracy, American Spectator (Dec. 2012). Mr. Unz found
rampant discrimination against Asian-Americans by Ivy League universities generally and
Harvard specifically.
225. Using data from the National Center for Educational Statistics, as well as other sources, Mr.
Unz found that the ‘ethnic composition of Harvard’s undergraduates… follows a highly
intriguing pattern.’ In particular, he found that after seeing a steady increase in Asian-American
admissions through the 1980s and into the 1990s, in 1993 ‘Asian numbers went into reverse,
23

 generally stagnating in the two decades that followed, with the official 2011 figure being 17.2
percent.’
226. Unz found ‘[e]ven more surprising … the sheer constancy of these percentages, with almost
every year from 1995-2011 showing an Asian enrollment within a single point of the 16.5
percent average, despite high fluctuations in the numbers of applications and the inevitable
uncertainty surrounding which students will accept admission.’ Unz highlighted that ‘this exactly
replicates the historical pattern … in which Jewish enrollment rose very rapidly, leading to the
imposition of an informal quota system, after which the numbers fell substantially, and thereafter
remained roughly constant for decades.’
227. A report by the Consortium on Financing Higher Education, in the Harvard Class of 1995,
also showed that Asian-Americans are held to a higher standard than any other group of
applicants. See Melissa Lee, Report Discloses SATs, Admit Rate, The Harvard Crimson (May 7,
1993). Responding to this study, Dean Fitzsimmons stated that race is ‘only one factor in
deciding whether a candidate is admitted,’ but that certain minority groups, particularly African
Americans, are “highly sought after” and that, ‘[s]tatistically, one could make the argument that
it’s easier for certain minorities [to be admitted].’
228. Dean Fitzsimmons added: ‘It’s true that admission rates for Asian-Americans and whites
are lower than the admission rates for Hispanics and African American students and Native
American students as well. But it’s more complicated than that. . . . The question we look at is
how much more likely will white and Asian-American students have access to the kind of
preparation that will make one an outstanding college candidate here.’
229. No non-discriminatory factor justifies the gross disparity in Asian-American admissions
relative to their presence in Harvard’s applicant pool.
230. One non-discriminatory factor that theoretically could justify this gross disparity would be
if a disproportionally high percentage of Asian-American students were clustered at the low end
of the applicant pool with regard to academic qualifications as compared to other racial groups.
But as Dr. Sander’s and Ms. Uppala’s paper and other data show, the opposite is in fact true. A
disproportionally high percentage of Asian-American students are clustered at the high end of
the applicant pool with regard to academic qualifications.
231. Another non-discriminatory factor that theoretically could justify this gross disparity would
be if a disproportionally high percentage of Asian-American students were lacking with regard to
non-academic criteria as compared to other racial groups.
232. But there is no data to support that theory. See, e.g., Esteban M. Aucejo, Hanming Fang,
and Ken Spenner, ‘Does Affirmative Action Lead to Mismatch? A New Test and Evidence,’ 2
Quantitative Economics 303 (2011). This study found no racial advantage for underrepresented
minority applicants in levels of personal achievement.
233. Studies also have shown that high-achieving Asian-American students are equally, if not
more, qualified than other racial groups with regard to non-academic criteria. At the University
24

 of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), over several years, undergraduate admissions readers
assigned each applicant three types of scores: ‘academic achievement’ (principally high school
grades, AP courses, and standardized test scores); ‘life challenges’ (mainly socioeconomic
background); and ‘personal achievement’ (such as leadership, musical ability, and community
service). These three scores jointly determined virtually all admissions decisions. See Peter
Arcidiacono, Thomas Espenshade, Stacy Hawkins, and Richard Sander, A Conversation on the
Nature, Effects, and Future of Affirmative Action in Higher Education Admissions, Pennsylvania
Journal of Constitutional Law (Fall 2014).
234. The data cover over 100,000 undergraduate applicants to UCLA over three years and show
absolutely no correlation between race and ‘personal achievement.’ Rather, the data show that
the only strong predictor of personal-achievement scores is academic achievement; applicants
with high test scores and grades tended to have personal achievement scores that were about one
standard deviation higher than applicants with low test scores and grades.
235. There is no evidence that Asian-Americans applying to UCLA have personal achievement
credentials that Asian-Americans applying to Harvard uniformly lack. Rather, all available
evidence points in the opposite direction.
236. Moreover, notwithstanding Harvard’s public relations emphasis on nonacademic factors in
reviewing applications, academic performance is the principal criteria for admission—except
when it comes to minority groups that are either preferred or discriminated against based on their
race and ethnicity.
237. Academic analyses of dozens of application processes at colleges and law schools around
the country demonstrate that selective schools give far more weight to academic achievement
and preparation than to other types of accomplishment and activity. See Richard Sander, Why
Strict Scrutiny Requires Transparency: The Practical Effects of Bakke, Gratz, and Grutter
(2011). In general, academic factors alone explain about 80 percent of admissions decisions at
selective schools.
238. The gross disparity between the percentage of Asian-American students in the applicant
pool and those in the admitted pool therefore are not explainable on any grounds other than
intentional discrimination on the basis of race.
Elite Schools That Use Race-Neutral Admissions Have Far Higher Asian-American
Enrollment.
239. Other elite colleges and universities do not consider race in their admissions process, and
therefore serve as controls against which to measure Harvard’s admission and enrollment
figures. Those universities uniformly admit and enroll far higher percentages of Asian-American
students than Harvard.
240. For example, the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) is a privates chool that selects
its students by strict academic standards and chooses not to consider race. Almost 40 percent of
its undergraduates are Asian-American.
25

 241. Table B sets forth the Asian-American percentage of the total undergraduate enrollment at
Caltech and Harvard:

Table B
Asian-American Enrollment
Harvard Caltech
25.2%
19.1%
1992
26.9%
20.6%
1993
29.8%
18.3%
1994
29.1%
18.4%
1995
27.6%
17.5%
1996
27.4%
17.4%
1997
24.1%
17.0%
1998
24.3%
17.2%
1999
24.9%
17.1%
2000
24.5%
16.4%
2001
27.2%
16.3%
2002
31.1%
16.2%
2003
31.1%
17.1%
2004
33.0%
17.6%
2005
37.4%
14.3%
2006
38.1%
15.4%
2007
39.8%
16.7%
2008
39.9%
17.0%
2009
39.4%
15.6%
2010
38.8%
17.2%
2011
39.6%
17.7%
2012
42.5%
18.0%
2013

242. The following graph represents the Asian-American enrollment trends between the two
schools:

26

 243. The University of California system also does not use racial preferences, as they were
banned via popular referendum in 1996. Asian-Americans currently make up 34.8 percent of
UCLA’s student body and 32.4 percent of the University of California at Berkley’s student body.
244. A similar phenomenon exists at elite high schools. Those high schools that do not employ
racial preferences have extraordinarily high percentages of Asian-Americans. For example,
Hunter College High School in New York chooses students without giving preference to
legacies, athletes, or underrepresented minorities. This admissions system produced a student
body that was 49 percent Asian-American in 2013.
245. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, a magnet school in
Virginia that is consistently ranked one of the best high schools in the country, does not employ
racial preferences. Its 2014 entering fall class is 66 percent Asian-American.
C. Statements By Admissions Staff At Harvard And Other Schools Provide Further
Evidence That Harvard Discriminates Against Asian-American Applicants.
246. Harvard evaluators consistently rank Asian-American candidates below White candidates in
‘personal qualities.’ In comments written in applicants’ files, Harvard admissions staff
repeatedly have described Asian-Americans as ‘being quiet/shy, science/math oriented, and hard
workers.’
247. One Harvard official summed up the profile of a purportedly typical Asian applicant this
way: ‘He’s quiet and, of course, wants to be a doctor.’

27

 248. Another Harvard official wrote that an applicant’s ‘scores and application seem so typical
of other Asian applications I’ve read: extraordinarily gifted in math with the opposite extreme in
English.’
249. According to Hunter College High School’s director of college counseling, admissions
officers at elite universities often complain that Asian-American applicants all look the same on
paper. ‘When Harvard calls us back and gives us a brief synopsis of why certain [Asian] kids
didn’t make it, they’ll say, “There were so many kids in the pool that looked just like this kid.”’
250. Admissions officers at other top schools have expressed similar sentiments. For example,
asked why Vanderbilt poured resources into recruiting Jewish students instead of AsianAmericans, a former administrator said, ‘Asians are very good students, but they don’t provide
the kind of intellectual environment that Jewish students provide.’
251. Rod Bugarin, a former admissions officer at Wesleyan, Brown, and Columbia, stated: ‘The
bar is different for every group. Anyone who works in the industry knows that.’ Without
affirmative action, ‘our elite campuses will look like UCLA and Berkeley,’ and ‘[t]hat wouldn’t
be good for Asians or for anyone else.’
D. College Counselors Acknowledge Discrimination Against Asian-Americans At Elite
Universities.
252. College counselors and advisors recognize that discrimination against Asian-Americans
occurs at elite universities such as Harvard and thus tell Asian-Americans to hide their identity,
to emphasize personal characteristics that avoid Asian stereotypes, and, in many cases, to lower
their expectations and apply elsewhere.
253. For example, the Princeton Review, the leading guide to college admissions, gives specific
recommendations for Asian-American students applying to elite schools such as Harvard on how
to overcome these schools’ anti-Asian-American bias. Its recommendations are both honest and
discouraging.
254. According to the Princeton Review: ‘Asian-Americans comprise an increasing proportion of
college students nationwide. Many Asian-Americans have been extraordinarily successful
academically, to the point where some colleges now worry that there are “too many” AsianAmericans on their campuses. Being an Asian-American can now actually be a distinct
disadvantage in the admissions processes at some of the most selective schools in the country.
Increasingly, the standard for affirmative action isn’t minority status, but under-represented
minority status. Since Asian-American populations at many colleges exceed the proportion of
Asian-Americans to the population of the state or country as a whole, Asian-Americans are a
minority, but not an underrepresented minority, at those colleges…. If you are an AsianAmerican—or even if you simply have an Asian or Asian-sounding surname—you need to be
careful about what you do and don’t say in your application.’
255. According to the Princeton Review: ‘You need to avoid being an Asian Joe Bloggs. Asian
Joe Bloggs is an Asian-American applicant with a very high math SAT score, a low or mediocre
28

 verbal SAT score, high math- or science-related SAT II scores, high math and science grades,
few credits in the humanities, few extracurricular activities, an intended major in math or the
sciences, and an ambition to be a doctor, an engineer, or a research scientist. The more you
sound like this person, the more likely admissions officers will be to treat you as part of the
“Asian invasion” and reject your application, or at the very least make you compete against other
Asian applicants with similar characteristics, rather than against the applicant pool as a whole.’
256. Princeton Review further explains: ‘If you share traits with Asian Joe Bloggs you should
probably pay careful attention to the following guidelines:
• If you’re given an option, don’t attach a photograph to your application and don’t answer
the optional question about your ethnic background. This is especially important if you
don’t have an Asiansounding surname. (By the same token, if you do have an
Asiansounding surname but aren’t Asian, do attach a photograph.)
• Work on your verbal SAT score, take some literature and history courses, and get
involved in activities other than math club, chess club, and computer club.
• Do not write your application essay about the importance of your family or the
positive/negative aspects of living in two cultures. These are Asian Joe Bloggs topics,
and they are incredibly popular. Instead, write about something entirely unrelated to your
ethnic background.
• Don’t say you want to be a doctor, and don’t say you want to major in math or the
sciences. You don’t have to lie. If you have lousy SAT verbal scores, saying you want to
be an English major isn’t going to help you, either. Just say you’re undecided. The point
is to distance yourself as much as possible from the stereotype.
• These guidelines are less important if you are chiefly interested in less selective schools
or if you are applying to schools where all the students take only math and science
courses and dream of medical or research careers. In fact, Asian Joe Bloggs’s high math
and science scores can be an advantage in applying to schools below the Ivy league level.
Even there, though, the less you sound like the stereotype, the better your chances will
be.’
257. Whole new industries have sprung up to help Asian-Americans overcome discrimination
and secure admission to elite universities, including Harvard.
258. One organization called ‘Asian Advantage College Consulting’ promises to help an ‘AsianAmerican student applying to elite colleges beat the Asian Quotas.’ Its strategy is, first,
recognizing that ‘Asian students need to approach the admissions process in a completely
different manner than the white or non-Asian applicant’ and, second, developing a strategy to
stand out from the many ‘Asian-American applicants with high grades and SAT/ACT scores,
along with a seemingly impressive list of awards and achievements in science fairs, musical
competitions and school-based activities like debate and the robotics club.’
259. Similarly, the Ivy League Coach, a college counseling practice, provides specific
recommendations for Asian-Americans: ‘The fact is, highly selective colleges seek a diverse
incoming class and a diverse incoming class does not mean an all Asian class. So Asian students
do indeed compete against each other. Does that mean that an Asian-American student shouldn’t
check off “Asian-American” on their college application? Not necessarily. A student should
29

 check off the ethnicity that they’re most comfortable with, the ethnicity or ethnicities that they
most closely identify with. But what the article on Asians and college admissions … doesn’t say
is that college admissions counselors are going to suspect that Henry Chang is Asian whether or
not Henry Chang checks the box. But that doesn’t mean Henry can’t do something about
differentiating himself from other Asian-American applicants…. Don’t just be the math kid with
perfect scores who competes in Mathletes. Don’t just play the violin. Do something that many of
the Asian-American kids in your class aren’t doing…. Whether or not the following is
[politically correct], it’s also true: What you want to do is distinguish yourself from any
perceived stereotypes.’
260. The bias against Asian-American applicants discussed by these college counselors exists at
Harvard. Many high school guidance counselors caution students applying to Harvard not to list
their race as Asian.
261. According to one high school guidance counselor, Asian-Americans face difficulty because
they cannot distinguish themselves within their community: ‘[e]very single child has had music
lessons. Every single child succeeds well in math. Every single child has done community
service in a hospital. Every child has done Chinese or Korean studies on Saturday and is fluent in
that language.’
E. Asian-American Applicants And Their Families Know That They Are Being
Discriminated Against By Elite Universities.
262. Asian-Americans are not blind to the discrimination employed by Harvard and other elite
colleges and universities.
263. According to Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt, ‘within the Asian community, of which
I’m a part, there’s this feeling that, for you to get into Harvard or Princeton, you’ve got to be
better than everybody else.’
264. According to Kara Miller, a former Ivy League admissions officer, ‘Asian kids know that
when you look at the average SAT for the school, they need to add 50 or 100 to it. If you’re
Asian, that’s what you’ll need to get in.’
265. For example, Iris Wang, a senior at Hunter College High School, one of the best public high
schools in America, scored a 1520 SAT score and had top grades. Her father is a chemist and her
mother a postal worker. She was rejected by Harvard, as well as numerous other schools.
According to Wang, ‘All the schools basically say, “we don’t discriminate.” But I went to the
Columbia session and they said they value a multicultural community. If they want to be
multicultural, there’s only so many of one culture they can take.’
266. Daniel Golden, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter then of The Wall Street Journal,
described Jamie Lee, who applied to Harvard, as well as six other elite private schools:
According to Mr. Golden, ‘Jamie Lee was a superb student. Born in Hong Kong to an English
father and Chinese mother, he grew up in London, where teachers marveled at his ability and his
IQ was measured at 162, widely considered genius level. When his family emigrated to
30

 Greenwich, Connecticut, in 2003, he quickly established himself as a top student at Greenwich
High, a premier public school. On his first tries, without a test-prep course, he scored the
maximum on the PSAT, the SAT, and two of his three SAT II subject tests; on the third SAT II,
writing, he missed by only 20 points, scoring 780 out of 800. Nor was he merely a standardizedtest machine; his problem solving displayed impressive originality. In 2005, Jamie won the
Greenwich High award given to the senior who “demonstrates creative ability and inventiveness
in math, who may take the unusual approach to a problem and come up with an unexpected
answer.” His creativity also emerged in music (the high school string ensemble performed his
composition “Three Dances,” with Jamie on cello) and mechanical design (he built an ingenious
wooden cabinet with doors that automatically opened and closed a mobile rack for storing
compact discs). “He likes to be opposition and play the devil’s advocate,” said his junior-year
Latin teacher, Camille Fusco. “He’s very independent in his thinking. On an essay question, he’d
deliberately take the point of view I didn’t want to hear. But he got away with it because he can
take any view brilliantly.”’
267. Despite this academic record, Harvard—as well as Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Columbia,
Dartmouth, and MIT—denied Jamie Lee admission. Fusco said he ‘“was really shocked [Jamie]
didn’t get in” because he “‘thought of him as a Harvard person.”’
268. Jamie’s English literature teacher, Brigid Barry, said she too was ‘“very, very surprised.
There’s no doubt he’s an outstanding student,”’ and that in eight years of teaching AP English,
she had seen the Ivy League Colleges admit many weaker candidates.
269. Marlyn McGrath Lewis, Harvard’s director of admissions, told Jamie’s father that Jamie
‘“was an excellent student but that a number of better musicians had applied.”’ When asked later
if Jamie was held to a higher standard because he was half Asian, Ms. Lewis declined to
comment.
270. One strategy that Asian-American students applying to Harvard use is to avoid identifying
their race. Many Asian-American students are unwilling to state their race at all on college
applications.
271. For example, Lanya Olmstead was born in Florida to a mother who immigrated from
Taiwan and an American father of Norwegian ancestry. Ethnically, she considers herself half
Taiwanese and half Norwegian. But when applying to Harvard, Olmstead checked only one box
for her race: white. According to Olmstead: ‘I didn’t want to put “Asian” down … because my
mom told me there’s discrimination against Asians in the application process…. Not to really
generalize, but a lot of Asians, they have perfect SATs, perfect GPAs, … so it’s hard to let them
all in.’
272. Said another student: ‘As someone who was applying with relatively strong scores, I didn’t
want to be grouped into that stereotype … I didn’t want to be written off as one of the 1.4 billion
Asians that were applying.’
273. Applicants who are part Asian-American regularly attempt to conceal their Asian ancestry
when applying to Harvard out of concern it would greatly reduce their chances of admission.
31

 274. For example, Harvard student Heather Pickerell, born in Hong Kong to a Taiwanese mother
and American father, refused to check any race box on her application because ‘I figured it might
help my chances of getting in.’
275. According to Lee Cheng, founder of the Asian-American Legal Foundation, ‘Many
Chinese-American children have internalized their anger and pain, confused about why they are
treated differently from their non-Chinese friends. Often they become ashamed of their ethnic
heritage after concluding that their unfair denial is a form of punishment for doing something
wrong.’
276. Another example is Henry Park. According to Daniel Golden’s reporting: ‘Henry Park
ranked 14th out of 79 members of the class of 1998 at Groton School, a super competitive prep
school in Groton, Massachusetts. He got a perfect 800 on the math SAT for a combined score of
1560 out of 1600, placing him in the top one-quarter of 1 percent of college-bound students. On
the SAT II subject test, he scored another perfect 800 on the harder of the two math exams
offered, along with 760 out of 800 in Latin and 740 in physics. He played violin and competed
on the cross-country team, and a respected math journal published a paper he coauthored with
two classmates. And as the son of hardworking, middle-class Korean immigrants who dreamed
of a better life for their children and scrimped to pay Groton’s tuition, Henry seemed to embody
the up-by his bootstraps American saga that is supposed to appeal to college admissions
officers.’
277. Henry’s guidance counselor at Groton nevertheless discouraged him from applying to the
Ivy League, telling him ‘it was a long shot at best, and advised him to lower his expectations to
second- and third-tier schools.’
278. Harvard denied Henry admission, as did Yale, Brown, and Columbia. At the same time, Ivy
League universities admitted 34 of Henry’s Groton classmates. According to Henry: ‘When the
decisions came out, and all these people started getting in, I was a little upset. I feel I have to
hold myself to a higher standard.’ Added his mother, Suki Park, ‘I was naïve. I thought college
admissions had something to do with academics.’
279. Henry Park’s mother described the harm caused to Henry and his family: ‘I have thought
many, many times why Henry failed. It was just devastating. He just failed like a falling leaf….
Korean Americans have to do a lot better than Caucasians to get admitted, and it’s probably the
same for other Asians. It’s very, very tough. Presently, yes, there is discrimination.’
280. When MIT’s dean of admissions Marillee Jones was asked about Henry Park, who was
rejected by Harvard, she said that ‘it’s possible that Henry Park looked like a thousand other
Korean kids with the exact same profile of grades and activities and temperament. My guess is
that he just wasn’t involved or interesting enough to surface to the top.’ To Ms. Jones, it made
sense for universities to admit other students over ‘yet another textureless math grind.’
281. The ‘model minority’ stereotype of high-achieving Asian-Americans does an even greater
disservice to socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals by making it virtually impossible for
32

 disadvantaged Asian-Americans to compete with disadvantaged students from other races who
are held to a lower standard.
282. For example, Kai Chan, a Princeton doctoral student in economics and the son of Chinese
immigrants, describes the struggles he has endured: ‘Is it fair in the name of (skin-deep) diversity
to hold back qualified students from admission to the Ivies because of their race? After all, it is a
fact that Asians need higher academic achievements than their peers to get admitted to the same
school…. The misguided approach of programs like affirmative action can be seen through my
experience. I am the son of poor, non-English speaking parents, neither of whom attended high
school. They never read to me as a child. They never attended my graduations. I went to some
terrible high schools. (Altogether, I attended five high schools, one of which was known locally
as “last chance high.”) I worked practically full-time while attending high school and college.
But I’ve never gotten the benefit of the doubt anytime in my life. If anything, I’ve had to be
better than my peers.’
283. Application statistics confirm that Asian-Americans are aware of (and have responded to)
the discrimination they suffer at Harvard. As the Asian-American population of the United States
has grown, so has its share of academically high achieving students. As Dr. Sander’s paper
shows, Asian-Americans made up roughly 21 percent of all domestic SAT takers with scores
above 1400 in the 1994, 1996, and 1998 admissions cycles. In the 2008, 2010, and 2012
admissions cycles, Asian-Americans made up roughly 33 percent of all domestic SAT takers
with scores above 2100—an increase roughly proportionate to the growth of the Asian-American
proportion of all SAT takers.
284. Yet during this same period, as many elite colleges, including Harvard, increasingly
discriminated against Asian-Americans, the proportion of high-scoring Asian-Americans sending
their scores to these schools declined sharply. As Dr. Sander and Ms. Uppala report, the
proportion of Asian-Americans with top SAT scores (i.e., above 1400 in 1994-98 and 2100 in
2008-12) who sent their scores to the most selective Ivy League Colleges fell from 39.7 percent
in the mid-1990s to only 27.4 percent during the 2008, 2010, and 2012 cycles. No comparable
drop occurred for any other racial group.
285. Asian-Americans understand that they are not competing for admission to Harvard against
the entire applicant pool. In light of Harvard’s discriminatory admissions policies, they are
competing only against each other, and all other racial and ethnic groups are insulated from
competing against high-achieving Asian-Americans.
286. Because Asian-Americans congregate at the high end of Harvard’s applicant pool, the
competition is fierce. This has deterred and continues to deter many qualified Asian-Americans
from applying to Harvard. Harvard’s discriminatory reach thus extends far beyond those highly
qualified Asian-Americans who decide to apply and whose applications are treated unfairly in
the admissions process.
287. This discrimination has reached and continues to reach every Asian-American student who
has shied away or will shy away from applying to Harvard out of the well-founded fear that he or

33

 she will not successfully make it out of the highly competitive Asian-American admissions pool
and gain admission to Harvard.

IX. HARVARD CURRENTLY ENGAGES IN RACIAL BALANCING.
288. Not only does Harvard discriminate against Asian-Americans, it racially balances its
entering freshman class to ensure proportional representation of the various racial and ethnic
groups present in Harvard’s student body.
289. Harvard’s system of racial balancing is shown through both direct and circumstantial
evidence, including statistical studies of Harvard’s admissions decisions. This evidence confirms
that Harvard is not using racial preference to pursue ‘critical mass’ or any other diversity goal the
Supreme Court has ever found permissible.
290. As shown in Table C, the racial demographics of Harvard’s admitted class have remained
stable across all racial groups at least over the last 9 years.
Table C. Harvard Admissions (Percentage of Admitted Students by
Race/Ethnicity)

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

African
American

11.9%

11.5%

10.2%

11.8%

11.3%

10.8%

11.0%

10.7%

10.5%

Hispanic

13.0%

11.5%

11.2%

12.1%

10.3%

10.9%

9.7%

10.1%

9.8%

Asian-American

19.7%

19.9%

20.7%

17.8%

18.2%

17.6%

18.5%

19.6%

17.7%

Native
American

1.9%

2.2%

1.7%

1.9%

2.7%

1.3%

1.3%

1.5%

1.4%

White and
Other

53.5%

54.9%

56.2%

56.4%

57.5%

59.4%

59.5%

58.1%

60.6%

34

 291. As shown in Table D, the racial demographics of Harvard’s enrolled first year classes also
have remained stable across all racial groups throughout the past decade.

Table D
Harvard Enrollment (Percentage of First Years by Race/Ethnicity)

2013

2012 2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006 2005

2004

2003

Nonresident alien

11%

11%

12%

10%

10%

10%

10%

9%

9%

9%

8%

Hispanic/Latino

10%

9%

10%

9%

9%

7%

8%

8%

7%

9%

8%

American Indian or
Alaska Native

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

Asian-Americans

19%

20%

17%

15%

17%

19%

18%

15%

19%

20%

17%

Black or African
American

7%

6%

7%

6%

9%

8%

8%

8%

9%

9%

9%

Native Hawaiian or
Other
Pacific
Islander

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

White

43%

45%

45%

44%

40%

41%

42%

44%

47%

47%

50%

Two or more races

7%

6%

6%

6%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Race and ethnicity
unknown

3%

3%

3%

11%

14%

15%

13%

15%

8%

5%

7%

35

 292. As shown in Table E, the racial demographics of Harvard’s overall student body likewise
have remained remarkably stable across all racial groups throughout the past decade.

Table E
Harvard Enrollment (Percentage of Student Body)

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

Nonresident alien

11%

11%

11%

10%

10%

10%

9%

10%

8%

8%

7%

Hispanic/Latino

9%

9%

9%

8%

8%

7%

7%

7%

7%

8%

7%

American Indian
or Alaska Native

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

Asian-Americans

18%

18%

17%

16%

17%

17%

15%

17%

18%

17%

16%

Black or African
American

6%

6%

7%

7%

8%

8%

8%

8%

8%

8%

7%

Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacific
Islander

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

White

45%

45%

45%

44%

42%

45%

46%

45%

49%

49%

49%

Two or more races

6%

5%

5%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Race and ethnicity
unknown

4%

5%

6%

12%

14%

14%

14%

14%

8%

9%

12%

293. Table C, Table D, and Table E, both individually and collectively, demonstrate that Harvard
is engaging in racial balancing as there can be no nondiscriminatory reason justifying such
remarkable stability in its overall student body across all racial groups over this multi-year
period.
294. Indeed, Harvard’s admissions and enrollment data tends to demonstrate that Harvard is
engaging in racial balancing to a statistically significant degree.
295. The year-to-year changes in the racial composition of Harvard’s admitted and enrolled
freshman class also reflect racial balancing as shown by, among other things, how Harvard has
managed its balance between African Americans and Hispanics, and how it has managed its
balance between Asians and Non-Hispanic whites.
296. Over the period between 1994 and 2008, African American enrollment has remained
extraordinarily stable at Harvard, averaging 7.8 percent with a standard deviation (calculated by
year over the 14-year period) of 0.3 percent. Hispanic enrollment also remained quite stable,
averaging 7.4 percent with a standard deviation of 0.4 percent. This occurred despite the fact that
36

 throughout this period, the applicant pool of academically strong Hispanic students at Harvard
and other elite Ivy League Colleges was substantially larger than the similar pool for African
Americans, and the gap became larger over time.
297. Yet Harvard and its peer Ivy League colleges have consistently admitted as many African
Americans as Hispanics (if not more), even though this meant using substantially larger
preferences for African Americans than for Hispanics. In other words, Harvard has manipulated
the size of racial preferences to ensure it maintained racial balance.
298. Over the period between 2003 and 2012, the percentage of Asian-Americans at Harvard
wavered only slightly above and below approximately 17 percent. As noted earlier, this is despite
the fact that, by 2008, Asian-Americans made up over 27 percent of Harvard’s applicant pool,
and approximately 46 percent of applicants with academic credentials in the range from which
Harvard admits the overwhelming majority of students. But during this same period, Harvard’s
‘non-Hispanic white’ representation is only slightly declining.
299. Given Harvard’s other racial balancing goals, it is obvious that if Harvard evaluated AsianAmericans and non-Hispanic whites equally, non-Hispanic white admissions would drop
significantly, possibly to the point where Asian-American enrollment and non-Hispanic white
enrollment would be roughly comparable. Although this would cause Harvard’s overall level of
racial diversity to increase, not decrease, Harvard nevertheless continues to use racial balancing
to keep white enrollment more than twice as high as Asian-American enrollment.
300. The minor year-to-year deviations in admissions and enrollment numbers demonstrate
Harvard’s commitment to maintaining racial stability over any four-year enrollment period. In
other words, when enrollment of a particular racial or ethnic group exceeds or falls short of
Harvard’s intended goal, in the next one or two admissions cycles, Harvard admits fewer or more
applicants of that racial or ethnic group in order to balance out the overall student body.
301. For example, in 2005, 18 percent of Harvard’s student body was Asian-American, which
was a 16-year high. In response, Harvard admitted an unusually low number of Asian-Americans
in the following admissions cycle (17.7 percent). That predictably resulted in an unusually low
yield of Asian-Americans enrolling at Harvard (15.0 percent). Indeed, both the 2006 admissions
and enrollment figures for Asian Americans were at or near 10-year lows.
302. Similarly, in 2012, 6 percent of Harvard’s overall student body was African American,
which was a 24-year low. In response, Harvard admitted an unusually high number of African
Americans in the next two admissions cycle (11.5 percent and 11.9 percent, respectively), which
were both record highs. That predictably resulted in a usually high yield of African Americans
enrolling at Harvard in 2013, which maintained an overall enrollment figure in line with the 20year average, and would be expected to result in a similar enrollment level of African Americans
in 2014.
303. No factor or criteria for admission—other than racial balancing—could explain these
admissions patterns and the overall consistency of Harvard’s admissions, enrollment, and overall
student body figures across all racial groups.
37

 304. As the Unz study found, ‘ethnic enrolment levels which widely diverge from academic
performance data or applications rates and which remain remarkably static over time provide
obvious circumstantial evidence for at least a de facto quota system.’”
4.2 Harvard’s Holistic Evaluation Approach Disproportionately Penalizes Asian-American
Applicants
On the surface, the Holistic Evaluation Approach employed by Harvard and other elite
universities appears to have advantages over a pure evaluation of academics because it takes into
account many other aspects of an applicant. However, since human factors play a major role in
this process, it is subject to abuse if use of stereotypes and racial bias are not prevented. In
addition, if rigidly applied, it may defeat the very purpose it was intended to achieve, that is, to
identify the talents our elite universities should admit.
4.2.1 The Cookie Cutter Approach of implementing the “Holistic Evaluation Approach” has
fundamental flaws
By design, the “Holistic Evaluation Approach” is used to identify all-rounded candidates who
have high academic capacity, excellent leadership and communication skills, and good character,
often demonstrated by volunteer activities. This is clearly a good criterion for future business
leaders and political leaders. However, any reasonable person may ask: Does it really apply to all
the majors that Harvard and other Ivy League colleges offer, such as in physics and the sciences?
If such criteria were applied across the board, Isaac Newton and Ludwig van Beethoven would
not be accepted by Ivy League colleges because of their unique personalities. Steve Jobs would
not be selected because the young Jobs possessed a few undesirable personal qualities which
may not meet the all–rounded standard as defined by Harvard. Albert Einstein would be declined
by Harvard because he fits perfectly one of the negative stereotypes Harvard Admission officers
imposed on Asian-American applicants: he was quiet and shy, science and math oriented, plus he
played the violin, too!
There needs to be an objective investigation into whether Harvard applies such a cookie cutter
approach to fields where raw intelligence and individual talent should outweigh leadership and
other social skills, because based on disclosed evidence, proportionately too many AsianAmerican applicants have been rejected by Harvard using the “Holistic Evaluation Approach.”
4.2.2 Asian-Americans’ academic strengths are often perceived as weaknesses by
Harvard’s admission officers
In the evidence compiled by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. xxviii “Harvard admissions staff
repeatedly have described Asian-Americans as ‘being quiet/shy, science/math oriented, and hard
workers.’” “Another Harvard official wrote that an applicant’s ‘scores and application seem so
typical of other Asian applications I’ve read: extraordinarily gifted in math with the opposite
extreme in English.’’ (Since the average SAT score for enrolled East Asian and Indian
American’s is 2299 in 2013 and the SAT has two out of three sections devoted to measure
English, Critical Reading and Writing, it is difficult to believe that Asian-American applicants
would have poor English ability as described by this admission official.)
38

 As discussed in Section 2.3.3 due to the decline of American education quality, the United States
cannot educate enough engineers and scientists to meet the rapidly growing needs of American
high tech industries. The Department of Education and various organizations have initiated many
programs to promote STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education.
Asian-Americans have demonstrated strong abilities in such areas. However Asian-Americans
applicants, in particular males, are frequently rejected by Harvard and other Ivy League Colleges
because they possess the very qualities America needs.
4.2.3 Harvard’s admission officers unreasonably give Asian-American students low scores
in non-academic areas.
According to the evidences compiled by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., Harvard evaluators
consistently rank Asian-American candidates below White candidates in “personal qualities.”
This largely reflects social stereotypes that Asian-Americans are not creative, or lack leadership
skills, which have been disproved by overwhelming evidence, as shown in Sections 2.3.1 and
2.3.2. “Personal achievement” is a key measure of non-academic achievement. According Dr.
Sander’s study cited in Section 2.3.3, there is no evidence that Asian-American applicants to
UCLA are weaker in “Personal Achievement.” There is no reason to believe Asian-American
applicants to Harvard would be weaker than those who applied to UCLA. xxix The only plausible
explanation is that because of the higher percentage of Asian population in California, the better
exposure to Asian culture leads to less cultural stereotypes and racial biases on the part of
admissions evaluators.
As a university which champions diversity, which would necessarily include accommodating
applicants from different backgrounds and eliminating social stereotypes and racial bias,
unfortunately Harvard has demonstrated the opposite to Asian-American communities. Many
Harvard evaluators’ comments exposed in Section 4.1 reflect use of such stereotypes and racial
bias in evaluating Asian American applicants.
4.2.4 Harvard’s admission officers tend to perceive Asian-American applicants as
undesirable candidates
In The Price of Admission, Golden described the barrier for Asian-American students seeking to
be accepted by Harvard and other elite universities. xxx “Beverly Lenny, then Hunter College
High School’s director of college counseling, said admissions officers at elite universities often
complain that Asian-American applicants all look the same on paper. When Harvard calls us
back and gives us a brief synopsis of why certain [Asian] kids didn’t make it, they’ll say, ‘There
were so many kids in the pool that looked just like this kid.’” There are many more similar
examples cited in Section 4.1.
There are only two possible explanations for such a phenomenon. The first is that Harvard
admissions officers unjustifiably use the admissions process to look for candidates with special
individual traits (largely based on their personal judgment) which should not be relevant to the
admissions process because, as shown above, Asian-American candidates possess all the
characteristics that reasonably demonstrate academic and social achievement and that predict
future success. The truth of matter is, many Asian-Americans who have allegedly similar

39

 resumes such as strong in academics, winners of various science and other competitions have
actually succeeded in different fields, sometimes as leaders and innovators.
An alternative explanation is that there is a quota for Asian-Americans at Harvard such that they
have to differentiate themselves further in a pool in which, if they were members of any other
race, they would have been considered qualified. In either case, Asian-Americans are
improperly discriminated against.
4.3 Specific Laws Violated
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides: “No person in the United States shall, on the
ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits
of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Since Harvard is a private university receiving federal financial
assistance, it must comply with this federal statue.
In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution provides, in relevant part, that
no person shall be denied “the equal protection of the laws.” The “central mandate” of equal
protection is “racial neutrality” by the government or institution subject to the Fourteenth
Amendment. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 904 (1995). “Whenever the government treats any
person unequally because of his or her race, that person has suffered an injury that falls squarely
within the language and spirit of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 229-30 (2000).
Furthermore, various Supreme Court rulings have
a) forbidden universities from using racial quotas;
b) limited use of race as the last resort, after exhausting other means to reach their diversity
goal, and limited the use of race to a “plus factor” requiring that admission processes
shall “‘ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that
makes an applicant’s race or ethnicity the defining feature of his or her application.’”
Fisher, 133 S. Ct. at 2418 (quoting Grutter, 539 U.S. at 337).
Based on the above laws and considering the more detailed interpretation provided in Section XI,
Governing Law, of the Students for Fair Admissions Inc.’s complaint against Harvard
University, filed on November 17, 2014, the ample evidences listed in Section 3.1 proves that:
1) Harvard has engaged in intentional discrimination against Asian-Americans
It is best summarized in Paragraphs 434-439 of Students for Fair Admissions Inc.’s complaint
against Harvard University: xxxi
“434. Harvard has intentionally discriminated against Asian-American applicants for admission
on the basis of race or ethnicity based on prejudicial and stereotypical assumptions about their
qualifications.

40

 435. Harvard officials have made prejudicial and stereotypical statements about Asian-American
applicants for admission. Among other things, Harvard officials have made racially stereotypical
statements assuming that, as a group, Asian-Americans all have same academic interests,
experiences, and personal attributes and that Asian-Americans, as a group, lack certain qualities
that Harvard values.
436. Harvard’s admissions system has a disproportionately negative effect on Asian-American
applicants for admission that is not explainable on grounds other than intentional discrimination
on the basis of race or ethnicity. As the statistical evidence demonstrates, Asian-Americans are
underrepresented at Harvard in relation to their share of the applicant pool and are massively
underrepresented in relation to the share of the highly qualified portion of Harvard’s applicant
pool. Asian-Americans represent roughly 46 percent of the highly qualified portion of Harvard’s
applicant pool, yet they represent only about 17 percent of those admitted and/or enrolled at
Harvard over a multi-year period.
437. Harvard has a long and unfortunate history of intentional discrimination on the basis of race
or ethnicity, including a history of intentional discrimination against Asian-Americans. The
Harvard Plan itself is a product of admissions policies created to advance an invidious purpose.
Harvard has a history of using the rubric of “holistic” admissions in general, and the Harvard
Plan in particular, to limit the admission of Jewish applicants and other minority groups. Indeed,
Harvard is using the same pretextual excuses to justify its disparate treatment of AsianAmericans that it used to deny that it was discriminating against Jewish applicants in the past. In
short, Harvard’s intentional discrimination against Asian-American applicants exhibits the same
pattern as its previous discrimination against Jewish applicants.
438. Harvard’s departure from its normal procedures, including its abrupt decision to no longer
make public the application figures grouped by racial category, demonstrates that steps were
taken for the improper purpose of engaging in intentional discrimination on the basis of race or
ethnicity.
439. Harvard’s substantive decision to abandon or place considerably less reliance, when it
comes to Asian-Americans, on the academic factors it usually considers important for purposes
of granting or denying admission demonstrates that Harvard is engaging in intentional
discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity.”
As we argued in Section 2.4 and 3.2, many of the stereotypes and prejudices used by Harvard
admissions officials are totally biased and contrary to the facts.
In addition, the studies published by Daniel Golden, Thomas Espenshade & Alexandra Radford
have indicated that elite universities including Harvard use racially differentiated standards in
their admissions process.

41

 2) Harvard has engaged in racial rebalancing, use of a de facto racial quota, to
discriminate against Asian-American Applicants
The evidence was first uncovered by Unz (2012), and is summarized in Paragraphs 449-452 of
Students for Fair Admissions Inc.’s complaint against Harvard University: xxxii
“449. The remarkable stability of Harvard’s admissions figures across racial and ethnic groups—
especially in the overall student body—demonstrates that Harvard is seeking proportional
representation and therefore is engaged in racial balancing.
450. There is no non-discriminatory reason that could justify admissions figures this stable
across all racial groups over a period of several years given the unique characteristics of each
applicant for admission. If Harvard were truly treating each applicant for admission as an
individual, as it professes to do, ‘[o]ne would expect the percentage of specified minority
enrollees produced by such a such a system to vacillate widely from year to year, reflecting
changes in each year’s applicant pool.’ Alan Dershowitz and Laura Hanft, Affirmative Action
and the Harvard College Diversity- Discretion Model: Paradigm or Pretext, 1 Cardozo L. Rev.
379, 382 n.13 (1979). That is not happening.
451. The pursuit of ‘critical mass’ could never justify admissions figures this stable given the
balancing that occurs between African-American and Hispanic applicants. But even if the pursuit
of “critical mass” led to stable admissions figures for African Americans and Hispanics, which it
did not, that would not provide a nondiscriminatory explanation for why the white and AsianAmerican admissions and enrollment figures have been this stable over a multi-year period.
452. The stability of Harvard’s admission and enrollment figures across all racial groups
notwithstanding the massive changes in the racial and ethnic makeup of Harvard’s admissions
pool over time—especially the significant increase in highly qualified Asian-American
applicants—confirms that Harvard is engaged in racial balancing.”
3) Harvard has used race in its admissions process well beyond a merely a “plus” factor or
merely to fill the last “few places” in the incoming freshman class, as might be allowed by
relevant Supreme Court Decisions
According to Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., the statistical evidence demonstrates that
Harvard is not using race merely as a “plus” factor xxxiii or merely to fill the last few places in the
entering freshman class. xxxiv Rather, especially for Asian-Americans, race or ethnicity is a factor
in the admissions decision reaching far beyond those competing for the last few places. The only
plausible explanation that could account for the remarkably low admissions rate for high
achieving Asian-American applicants is that Harvard uses race as a dominant factor when
evaluating Asian-American applicants (only about 17 percent of those admitted and/or enrolled
at Harvard over a multi-year period out of roughly 46 percent of the highly qualified portion of
Harvard’s applicant pool).
The above violations of existing laws and relevant Supreme Court decisions have caused harm
and injury to Asian American applicants and their families. Such violations have severely
42

 undermined the equal protection guaranteed to all citizens, including Asian-American citizens,
by the Constitution of the United States.
These violations of law also severely undermine American Meritocracy, a value treasured by
most Asian-Americans and non-Asian-Americans alike, and an essential mechanism needed to
ensure American racial equality and economic prosperity.

43

 5. ASIAN-AMERICANS’ VIEWS ON AMERICAN EDUCATION AND
COLLEGE ADMISSION
Since this Administrative Complaint involves one of the most sensitive issues in American
education, we would like to take this opportunity to clarify Asian-American communities’
viewpoints on this issue.
5.1 Asian-Americans Care about American Education Progress
Asian-Americans value education because education is essential in developing a responsible
person and improving people’s living standards. Asian-Americans are significant contributors to
American education. Below are just some examples:
• Many Asian-Americans are college heads, department chairs, professors in various
American universities and teachers in many American elementary, middle and high
schools. They are essential contributors to American education.
• Fareed Zakaria, the host of CNN Global Public Square program frequently introduces
fresh education ideas to help improve American educations.
• Yukong Zhao xxxv and Quanyu Huang xxxvi have published books to share with American
families with proven mainstream Chinese-American parenting and education
experiences, which are primarily based on the strengths of Confucian values and
American education methods, not overly strict parenting.
• Yingchao Zhang, Yang Shao, Jesse Liu, Jerry Shi, Zhaobo Wang and many other AsianAmericans serve on various local school boards, bringing Asian-American education
wisdom to schools while taking back strengths of American education to Asian-American
communities.
• Zuming Feng, xxxvii a math teacher at Philips Exeter Academy of New Hampshire, has
devoted many extra hours to lead the USA International Mathematical Olympia Team
since 2003. Though not as famous or rich as sports team coaches, Mr. Feng and other
STEM educators are making essential contributions to America high tech industries, the
foundation of American prosperity.
• Andrew Ng, xxxviii co-founded Coursera, an educational technology firm, which aims to
drastically reduce the cost of college education.
• Each summer, over 20 small Chinese organizations in Houston launch the Chinese
American Relief Effort (C.A.R.E), donating funds to a poor elementary school selected in
disadvantage communities, to cover school supplies for all of its students for the whole
school year. In 2014, they helped 1720 students. xxxix
• Every day in America, many Asian-American students volunteer their precious time,
tutoring students with weaker academic performance, in particular those from
disadvantaged communities.
The list can be much longer. The truth of matter is, Asian-Americans care about American
education progress, including the education attainment of disadvantaged communities.
5.2 Asian-Americans’ View on College Admission
In addition to education, Asian-Americans also care about the poor and the disadvantaged
because most Asian-Americans came from poor countries and know it is hard to grow and obtain
44

 good education in such environments. After observing many poor children living in
disadvantage communities, we clearly want to help them in education. As a result, AsianAmericans generally support Affirmative Action in college admission if (1) it is based on an
objective evaluation of applicants’ economic conditions, (2) its implementation would not
significantly undermine American meritocracy, and (3) it is effective in improving the education
quality of disadvantaged communities.
We understood that economic-conditions-based Affirmative Action will favor more applicants in
African American and Hispanic communities than in Asian-American communities because they
have more populations living in poor neighborhoods, but we are willing to support such
Affirmative Action.
However, as the racial group worst affected by race-based Affirmative Action in college
admissions, we do not support its continuation because race-based Affirmative Action in college
admissions is unfair and creates racial tensions. It favors well-off African American or Hispanic
applicants over Asian or White American applicants with poor or similar economic conditions.
In high schools, there are many high performing African American and Hispanic students. The
majority of them are from well-off families or families living in middle class neighborhoods. The
preferences given to them have penalized Asian and White Americans unfairly. In contrast, a
race-blind, economically-based Affirmative Action policy will treat all races fairly, and give
favorable consideration to the poor, the ones who truly need help.
Furthermore, what America needs to do is to take on the root cause of the problem—improving
the educational attainment of disadvantaged communities. This requires educational reform,
targeted funding, and embracing pro-education values in our society. Many Asian-Americans
have joined this important endeavor.
In summary, as illustrated in many examples in Section 5.1, Asian-Americans care about and are
making contributions to American education, in particular education quality in America’s
disadvantaged communities. We believe the better solution is to confront and solve the low
educational attainment issues in disadvantaged communities. If Affirmative Action in college
admissions needs to be extended for the foreseeable future, economic-condition based
Affirmative Action is much fairer and more effective than race-based Affirmative Action.
American college admissions processes should not be treated as a zero-sum racial allocation
game, instead, admissions should be primarily based on meritocracy, one of many fundamental
values that make America the greatest nation in the world.

45

 6. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Based on the overwhelming evidence uncovered by Daniel Golden, Thomas Espenshade/
Alexandra Radford, Ron Unz, Richard Sander, as well as that compiled by Students for Fair
Admissions, Inc., plus our direct observations in Asian-American communities, we believe that
Harvard University has engaged illegally in direct discrimination against Asian-American
applicants by using (i) stereotypes and racial bias in its subjective “Holistic Evaluation
Approach,” (ii) racial quota/rebalancing and (iii) race as a major factor beyond what is allowed
by relevant Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, Asian-American applicants have become
the largest group of victims of Harvard’s racially based admissions practices.
In its ugliest essence, such practice is in the same vein as the past discrimination and exclusion of
Asian-Americans, including, among instances, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the
internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Shockingly, America’s elite
universities, even today, are still violating the civil rights of Asian-American applicants on a
continuous and systematic basis, and have been able to carry out their patently unconstitutional
activities with little or no governmental intervention. It is imperative for the U.S. Federal
Government to intervene in a forceful manner to protect the constitutional rights of AsianAmerican applicants and their families against continued infringement by Harvard and other
colleges.
As a result, complainants request that the Department of Education and the Department of
Justice to grant the following remedies and enforce the same:
1) Require the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education, Educational
Opportunities Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to launch
objective investigations.
2) Require Harvard University to immediately cease and desist from using stereotypes,
racial biases and other discriminatory means in evaluating Asian-American applicants
during its admission process.
3) Require Harvard University immediately to cease and desist from using racial quotas
or racial balancing in its admissions process.
4) Require Harvard University to immediately cease and desist from using race in its
admissions process; OR, in the alternative, require Harvard University to strictly limit
its use of race only to the extent permissible under relevant Supreme Court decisions.
5) Require Harvard University to limit the subjective components in its applicant
evaluation process, using them only to the extent justified by the purposes of
education, not racial balancing.
6) Require Harvard University to disclose the qualifications of its applicant pool, at least
at a level comparable to such data disclosed by elite public universities, given that
Harvard, too, is the recipient of significant federal funding.
7) Require the Office of Civil Rights, Department of Education and/or Civil Rights
Division, Department of Justice to take proper measures as are necessary to ensure that
Harvard and other Ivy League Schools will never again discriminate against AsianAmericans, or applicants of any other race.

46

 List of Co-Complainants (Coalition of Asian American Associations)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
37)

1441 Manufactured Home Residents Association (Rowland Heights, CA)
80-20 Initiative Washington DC Area Chapter
American Society of Engineers of Indian Origin
Anhui Association of Texas
AsianAmericanVoters.org
Asian Americans for Political Advancement-PAC
Asian American Legal Foundation
Beijing Institute of Technology Alumni Association at Silicon Valley
BIT Sindri Alumni Association of North India
Boston Forward Foundation
Bostonese.com (English-Chinese Online Journal)
Chinese American Association of Orange County
Chinese American Equalization Association
Chinese American for Progress and Equality
Chinese School of Tomorrow (Orlando, FL)
Conejo Chinese Cultural Association
Dallas / FT.Worth Chinese Alliance
Global Organization of People of Indian Origin-Los Angeles Chapter
Great Neck Chinese Association
Hanlin Education Foundation of America
Henan Association of Northern California
Houston Chinese Alliance
Houston Chinese Civic Center
Houston Jiangsu Association
Houston Shanghai Association
Houston Zhiqing Association
Howard County Chinese Parents Group
Huazhong University of Science & Technology Alumni Association of Southern
California
Inner Mongolia Association
International Chinese Transportation Professionals Association - Texas Chapter
Korean Parents Organization of Millburn and Short Hills
Livingston Chinese Association
Livingston Huaxia Chinese School
Long Island Chinese American Association
Long Island School of Chinese
Millburn Short Hills Chinese Association
National Federation of Indian American Associations
47

 38)
39)
40)
41)
42)
43)
44)
45)
46)
47)
48)
49)
50)
51)
52)
53)
54)
55)
56)
57)
58)
59)
60)
61)
62)
63)
64)

Noah Private Foundation
Noble Tree Publishing Inc.
Northern California Chinese Athletic-Cultural Federation
Overseas Hubei-er Association
Overseas Chinese Association of Miami
Pakistan Policy Institute
Peking University Alumni Association of Southern California (PUAASC)
San Antonio Chinese Alliance
San Diego Asian American for Equality
Shah Latif Cultural Institute of Texas (SLCIT)
Shandong Fellowship Association of Southern USA
Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation
Silicon Valley Women Alliance
Sino Professionals Association
Texas Guangdong Association
Texas Northeast Chinese Association
The Federation of Florida Chinese Association
The Orange Club
Tri-Valley Korean American Parents Association
Tsinghua University Alumni Association of Southern California
United Asian Americans for Activism
United Chinese Association of Utah
United for a Better Community (UBC)
US California Henan Association
US Shangdong Culture and Education Foundation
US Shangdong Fellowship Association
USTC Alumni Association of Greater New York

Note: In order to protect signing individual’s privacy, we hereby request signature pages of
above organizations to be treated confidential by Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice
and Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education. Therefore, they are included in Appendix
of this Complaint separately.

48

 Appendix: Signature pages of co-complainants (Request for confidentiality)

References:
i

Golden, Daniel. The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges
and Who Gets Left Outside. New York: Three Rivers Press 2007.
ii
Espenshade, Thomas J. & Alexandra Radford, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in
Elite College Admission and Campus Life, Princeton University Press, 2009.
iii
Unz, Ron. "The Myth of American Meritocracy: How corrupt are Ivy League admissions?" December
2012: 14-51.
iv
Students for Fair Admissions, I. (2014). SFVA-v.-Harvard-Complaint. Boston: Filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts Boston Division, November 17, 2014.
v
Students for Fair Admissions: 45.
vi
U.S. Census data
vii
Source: various U.S. Census data.
viii
Source: Unz, Ron. "The Myth of American Meritocracy”:18.
ix
Unz, Ron. "The Myth of American Meritocracy”:19-22.
x
Thomson Reuters, “Top 100 Materials Scientists,” March 2, 2011,
http://www.technologyreview.com/lists/innovators-under-35/2014/
xi
MIT Technology Review, “35 Innovators Under 35 (2014),”
http://www.technologyreview.com/lists/innovators-under-35/2014/
xii
Unz, Ron. "The Myth of American Meritocracy”:20-21.
xiii
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, “Then and Now: America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part
VII,” October 2012,
http://www.kauffman.org/~/media/kauffman_org/research%20reports%20and%20covers/2012/10/then_a
nd_now_americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs.pdf
xiv
The Pew Research Center, “The Rise of Asian Americans,” Updated edition, April 4, 2013: 1.
xv
Students for Fair Admissions: 51-52.
xvi
Students for Fair Admissions: 39-41.
xvii
Harvard University’s response to the lawsuit by Students for Fair Admissions, 33-34, Boston: Filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Boston Division, February 18, 2015.
xviii
Golden, Daniel. The Price of Admission: Chapter 7.
xix
Dhar, Rohin, “Do Elite Colleges Discriminate Against Asians?” Priceeconomics.com, April 24, 2013,
http://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-discriminate-against-asians
xx
Unz, Ron. "The Myth of American Meritocracy”:17-22.
xxi
Unz, Ron. "The Myth of American Meritocracy”:17-22.
xxii
Students for Fair Admissions: 45-46.
xxiii
Unz, Ron. "The Myth of American Meritocracy”:21.
xxiv
Wu, Yi-Chen (Jenny), University of Georgia, “Admission Considerations in Higher Education
Among Asian-Americans” American Psychology Association,
http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/ethnicity-health/asian-american/article-admission.aspx.
xxv
History Channel, http://www.history.com/topics/chinese-exclusion-act

49

 xxvi

History Channel, http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/japanese-american-relocation
Students for Fair Admissions: 43-72.
xxviii
Students for Fair Admissions: 56.
xxix
Students for Fair Admissions: 52.
xxx
Golden, Daniel. The Price of Admission: Chapter 7.
xxxi
Students for Fair Admissions: 102-104.
xxxii
Students for Fair Admissions: 106.
xxxiii
Students for Fair Admissions: 108.
xxxiv
Students for Fair Admissions: 111.
xxxv
Yukong Zhao is Chinese-American author of The Chinese Secrets For Success: Five Inspiring
Confucian Values, which shares Asian-American experiences on education, parenting and money
management to mainstream American audiences. He has also published columns/blogs at Forbes
Magazine, Orlando Sentinel, and StudentsFirst to advocate a pro-education culture.
xxxvi
Quanyu Huang is a Chinese-American author of The Hybrid Tiger, which shares balanced ChineseAmerican parenting experiences with American audiences.
xxxvii
http://www.scienceworkshophk.com/math-strategies-1314/dr-fengs-background-1314
xxxviii
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/ang/
xxxix
http://www.houstoncare.org/
xxvii

50