OVER 160 Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) groups have filed amicus briefs calling for equal opportunity and for the Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action policies.
Asian Americans Advancing Justice (Advancing Justice), the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), filed three separate amicus briefs urging the High Court to uphold the affirmative action policy at the University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin).
“Such broad support for race conscious admissions policies sends a clear message that AAPIs overwhelmingly support these policies and will not be used as a racial wedge to disenfranchise other communities of color,” said Laboni Hoq, litigation director at Advancing Justice — Los Angeles.
The briefs were filed on behalf of over 160 organizations that support equal opportunity and affirmative action in higher education, and they represent the large diversity within AAPI communities, including Arab, Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, South Asian, Southeast Asian, and Pacific Islander organizations.
“With long histories of serving the most vulnerable members of our community, these organizations range from large, pan-Asian national organizations and professional associations, to student and grassroots groups,” continued Hoq.
In addition, the briefs represent 53 individuals, including higher education faculty and school officials.
The filings are in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s second review of Fisher v. University of Texas, reported NBC News. Caucasian student Abigail Fisher was rejected when she applied to UT-Austin. Her initial lawsuit, heard by the United States District Court in 2009, alleged that UT-Austin’s affirmative action policies prevented her from gaining admission.
The Supreme Court justices heard the case in 2013, but sent it back to the Fifth Circuit to see if UT-Austin had used other ways to achieve diversity in its campus before it used race as a factor. The next year, the Fifth Circuit determined that the university used “race-neutral methods (e.g. “Top Ten Percent” Plan), and still did not achieve the diversity it sought.” Therefore, it “upheld the use of race as part of a holistic admissions approach, which is constitutional under current law.”
The Fisher case also relied heavily on the claim that Asian Americans were discriminated against by UT-Austin’s admissions policy.
In its brief, however, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) argued that nothing on the record showed that the school’s admissions process disadvantaged or discriminated against that demographic.
Asian Americans in UT’s freshman class has risen from 6 percent in 1986 to 23 percent in 2014.
“Supporters of Fisher have mischaracterized UT-Austin’s race-conscious admissions policy,” AALDEF executive director Margaret Fung told NBC News in an email statement. “It can benefit Asian Americans through an individualized review of applicants that avoids harmful stereotypes based on the ‘model minority’ myth.”
The use of race in a holistic review of applicants is “constitutional, and nothing in UT’s policies indicate any cap, quota, bias, or other kind of negative action, formal or informal affecting Asian Americans or any other group,” AALDEF’s brief argued.
“Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders–a unique cross-section of identities and experiences that spans a range of comparative privilege and disadvantage–benefit from this individualized approach to admissions, as do African Americans, Latinos, and Whites,” the brief read.
The AALDEF amicus brief also distinguishes between the two distinct concepts of negative action and affirmative action, noting there is “no evidence in the record of discrimination” by UT-Austin.
The amicus brief filed by Advancing Justice argues that an applicant cannot be evaluated holistically without the consideration of race, according to the group’s press release.
In UT-Austin’s holistic review program, where test scores play a dominant role in the admissions process, it is crucial to consider race because the tests disproportionately limit access to educational opportunities for minority students, Advancing Justice claims.
The brief also shows how racially conscious admissions programs opened the doors of higher education for AAPI students, after a century of discrimination and exclusion to their communities and families. These programs and opportunities have continued to benefit many AAPI students, who face significant educational barriers today.
The groups also looked at disaggregated data from the US Census Bureau, revealing large disparities in educational attainment among Asian American ethnic groups.
Based on the data, the educational attainment of Hmong, Cambodian, Laotian, and Vietnamese Americans is the lowest among Asian American ethnic groups, and similar to those of Latinos and African Americans. Only 61 percent of Hmong Americans have a high school diploma, while only 12 percent of Laotian Americans have graduated from college.
“Supporters of Fisher have mischaracterized UT-Austin’s race-conscious admissions policy. It can benefit Asian Americans through an individualized review of applicants that avoids harmful stereotypes based on the ‘model minority’ myth,” said AALDEF Executive Director Margaret Fung.
“We recognize that Asian Pacific Americans, like other groups, have endured cases of discrimination and lack of opportunities which continue to impact us today. The low numbers of minority groups in the legal profession, government, and corporate leadership underscore the need to remove barriers to higher education and increase diversity,” agreed George C. Chen, president of NAPABA. “Courtrooms, law firms, and law schools must be filled with people of different backgrounds so that we can better understand and respect the diversity of the American public.”
