The webmaster favors affirmative action based on income: a poor 
kid who has the same qualifications as a richer kid should receive a 
preference in university admissions.  
- There is no reason the children of wealthy minorities, e.g. Michael Jordan, 
Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, etc. should benefit from affirmative action based on race.  
- In California, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Texas, non-Hispanic whites are in the minority.  
Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, and New York will soon join them.

Statistics on reverse discrimination against Asian Americans at the University of 
California, UC medical schools, UC law schools, the University of Michigan, and other 
states, please click on: http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/

The Center for Equal Opportunity has published many studies showing that Bigots for 
the Left perpetrate reverse discrimination against  Asian-Americans.  
http://www.ceousa.org/edprefs.html 


The 2009 book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and 
Campus Life, suggested that private institutions essentially admit black students with SAT scores 310 
points below those of comparable white students. And the book argued that Asian-American applicants 
need SAT scores 140 points higher than those of white students to stand the same chances of admission.



4/15/13 Time: "The Thin-Envelope Crisis"
By Fareed Zakaria 
    In an essay in the American Conservative, Ron Unz uses a mountain of data to charge that America's 
top colleges and universities have over the past two decades maintained a quota--an upper limit--of 
about 16.5% for Asian Americans, despite their exploding applicant numbers and high achievements.
    Some of Unz's data is bad. His numbers do not account for the many Asian mixed-race students and
others who refuse to divulge their race (largely from fears that they will be rejected because of a quota). 
Two Ivy League admissions officers estimated to me that Asian Americans probably make up more 
than 20% of their entering classes. Even so, institutions that are highly selective but rely on more 
objective measures for admission have found that their Asian-American populations have risen much 
more sharply over the past two decades. Caltech and the University of California, Berkeley, are now 
about 40% Asian. New York City's Stuyvesant High School admits about 1,000 students out of the 
30,000 who take a math and reading test (and thus is twice as selective as Harvard). It is now 72% 
Asian American. The U.S. math and science olympiad winners are more than 70% Asian American. 
In this context, for the U.S.'s top colleges and universities to be at 20% is, at the least, worth some 
reflection.
    Test scores are only one measure of a student's achievement, and other qualities must be taken 
into account.  But it's worth keeping in mind that the arguments for such subjective criteria are precisely 
those that were made in the 1930s to justify quotas for Jews. In fact, in his book The Chosen: The 
Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale and Princeton, scholar Jerome Karabel 
exhaustively documented how nonobjective admissions criteria such as interviews and extracurriculars
were put in place by Ivy League schools in large measure to keep Jewish admissions from rising.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2140209,00.html


4/11/13 Harvard Crimson: Phi Beta Kappa Announces 'Junior 24' for the Class of 2014
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/4/11/pbk-junior-24-anouncement/?page=single# 
    Reader comment: 42% on Harvard's Phi Beta Kappa Juniors List have Asian names even though 
Asians comprise less than 20% of the class. 10 of 24 are Asian, while there were 1600 students in 
Harvard's Class of 2014. 
    For over 10 years, Asian students are over-represented on Harvard's Phi Beta Kappa list consistently 
every year compared to their percentage (around 20%) of the Harvard College student body.  This over-
representation in Phi Beta Kappa also occurs in other Ivy League and elite colleges.  This is evidence
Harvard applies stricter admission criteria to Asian-American applicants than it does to other students.


2/5/13 National Review: "Racial Quotas, Harvard, and the Legacy of Bakke; 
Have three decades of Supreme Court support for affirmative action been based on fraud?"
by Ron Unz
    Over the years, advocacy of “a holistic admissions system” as practiced by Harvard has become a 
favored mantra among diversity advocates in higher education.
    But what if all these claims were simply fraudulent?
    I recently published a lengthy article analyzing the admissions policies of America’s Ivy League 
universities; one of my main points was that these policies coincide with a very suspicious pattern of 
Asian-American enrollments.
    Over the last 20 years, America’s population of college-age Asian Americans has roughly doubled; 
but during this same period, the number admitted to Harvard and most other Ivy League schools has held
steady or even declined, despite significant improvement in Asian academic performance. Furthermore, 
the Asian percentages at all Ivy League schools have recently converged to a very narrow range and 
remained static over time, which seems quite suspicious.
    Meanwhile, the Californian Institute of Technology (Caltech) follows a highly selective but strictly race-
neutral admissions policy, and its enrollment of Asian Americans has grown almost exactly in line with 
the growth of the Asian-American population.
    The stark difference between these two admissions policies is evident in this graph of comparative 
enrollment:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339778/racial-quotas-harvard-and-legacy-ibakkei-ron-unz 
    Top officials at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton today strenuously deny the existence of Asian-American 
quotas, but their predecessors had similarly denied the existence of Jewish quotas in the 1920s, now 
universally acknowledged to have existed. In fact, the large growth in the Asian-American population 
means that the fraction attending Harvard has fallen by more than 50 percent since the early 1990s, 
a decline considerably greater than the decline Jews experienced after the implementation of secret 
quotas in 1925.
    Based on these officially reported enrollment statistics, the evidence of Ivy League racial quotas 
seems overwhelming to many outside observers. The liberal New York Times recently ran a forum on 
the topic, and a large majority of its commentators were scathing in their criticism of the Harvard 
public-relations officer who defended his university’s position.
    S. B. Woo, founding president of 80-20, a national Asian-American advocacy organization that 
strongly supported President Obama’s reelection, participated in the New York Times forum, entitling
his contribution “Discrimination Is Obvious.” He argued that “the credibility of elite colleges suffers” 
when they deny the clear evidence that they “set a quota for Asian students,” and he claimed that 
“America’s core value of equal opportunity is being trampled.” Liberal and left-wing pundits from 
publications such as The Atlantic and The Washington Monthly have similarly ridiculed Harvard’s 
blatant dishonesty in the matter.
— Ron Unz, a theoretical physicist by training, serves as publisher of The American Conservative.
For full story, see 
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339778/racial-quotas-harvard-and-legacy-ibakkei-ron-unz 



1/10/13 Center for Equal Opportunity: Preferences at the Service Academies
Racial, Ethnic and Gender Preferences in Admissions to the U.S. Military Academy and 
the U.S. Naval Academy
By Robert Lerner, Ph.D and Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D
    There is no evidence that Asian applicants receive special preference at either the U.S. Military 
Academy or the U.S. Naval Academy.  In fact, there is evidence that the Asian applicants with the 
same academic qualifications find it somewhat more difficult to obtain admission than do their 
white counterparts at both academies.
    The four-year graduation rates of white and Asian students are higher than those of blacks and
Hispanics at both academies. This is consistent with the existence of racial and ethnic preferences
and similar to gaps which we have found elsewhere, indicating that preferences have a negative
impact on graduation rates.
For full report, see http://www.acri.org/blog/wp-content/ceousa-service-adademies.pdf  


12/22/12 Washington Monthly: "Discrimination against Asian American students in Ivy League admissions"
By Kathleen Geier
    The New York Times has been having an interesting debate about the issue of anti-Asian quotas in 
the Ivy League. There was this op-ed earlier in the week, as well as a series of essays arguing various 
sides of the question as part of the Times’ “Room for Debate” feature.
    Participants mostly debated whether quotas limiting Asian students in the Ivies really exist. But of that 
there can be little doubt. While the Harvard guy in the “Room for Debate” forum predictably swears up 
and down that their admissions committee “does not use quotas of any kind,” that appears to be almost 
statistically impossible.
For full story, see http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_12/discrimination_against_asian_a041954.php#


12/21/12 The Atlantic: "Is the Ivy League Fair to Asian Americans?  An admission officer's uncomfortable 
explanation for why they don't get in as often as their test scores would predict suggests it's not."
By Conor Friedersdorf
    Are Ivy League institutions discriminating against Asian Americans by limiting how many are admitted? 
That's the subject of a debate published this week in the New York Times. Let's start with the folks who 
believe that there's effectively a race-based quota limiting Asian Americans.
    Ron Unz makes the most powerful argument for that proposition. "After the Justice Department closed 
an investigation in the early 1990s into charges that Harvard University discriminated against Asian-
American applicants, Harvard's reported enrollment of Asian-Americans began gradually declining, 
falling from 20.6 percent in 1993 to about 16.5 percent over most of the last decade," he writes. 
"This decline might seem small. But these same years brought a huge increase in America's college-age 
Asian population, which roughly doubled between 1992 and 2011, while non-Hispanic white numbers 
remained almost unchanged. Thus, according to official statistics, the percentage of Asian-Americans 
enrolled at Harvard fell by more than 50 percent over the last two decades, while the percentage of whites 
changed little. This decline in relative Asian-American enrollment was actually larger than the impact of 
Harvard's 1925 Jewish quota, which reduced Jewish freshmen from 27.6 percent to 15 percent."
For full story, see http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/is-the-ivy-league-fair-to-asian-americans/266538/


12/20/12 New York Times: "Statistics Indicate an Ivy League Asian Quota,"
Ron Unz is a software developer and publisher of The American Conservative, where he elaborated 
on these thoughts in a recent article . He is a graduate of Harvard University.
    Just as their predecessors of the 1920s always denied the existence of “Jewish quotas,” top officials 
at  Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the other Ivy League schools today strongly deny the existence of “
Asian  quotas.” But there exists powerful statistical evidence to the contrary.
    Each year, American universities provide their racial enrollment data to the National Center for 
Education Statistics, which makes this information available online. After the Justice Department 
closed an investigation in the early 1990s into charges that Harvard University discriminated against 
Asian-American applicants, Harvard’s reported enrollment of Asian-Americans began gradually 
declining, falling from 20.6 percent in 1993 to about 16.5 percent over most of the last decade.
    This decline might seem small. But these same years brought a huge increase in America’s 
college-age Asian population, which roughly doubled between 1992 and 2011, while non-Hispanic 
white numbers remained almost unchanged. Thus, according to official statistics, the percentage of 
Asian-Americans enrolled at Harvard fell by more than 50 percent over the last two decades, while 
the percentage of whites changed little. This decline in relative Asian-American enrollment was 
actually larger than the impact of Harvard’s 1925 Jewish quota, which reduced Jewish freshmen 
from 27.6 percent to 15 percent.
    The percentages of college-age Asian-Americans enrolled at most of the other Ivy League schools
also fell during this same period, and over the last few years Asian enrollments across these different 
universities have converged to a very similar level and remained static over time. This raises 
suspicions of a joint Ivy League policy to restrict Asian-American numbers to a particular percentage.
    Meanwhile, the California Institute of Technology follows a highly selective but strictly race-neutral 
admissions policy, and its enrollment of Asian-Americans has grown almost exactly in line with the 
growth of the Asian-American population.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/19/fears-of-an-asian-quota-in-the-ivy-league/statistics-indicate-an-ivy-league-asian-quota 


12/19/12 New York Times: "Asians: Too Smart for Their Own Good?"
By Carolyn Chen
    AT the end of this month, high school seniors will submit their college applications and begin waiting 
to hear where they will spend the next four years of their lives. More than they might realize, the outcome 
will depend on race. If you are Asian, your chances of getting into the most selective colleges and 
universities will almost certainly be lower than if you are white.
    Asian-Americans constitute 5.6 percent of the nation’s population but 12 to 18 percent of the student 
body at Ivy League schools. But if judged on their merits — grades, test scores, academic honors and 
extracurricular activities — Asian-Americans are underrepresented at these schools. Consider that 
Asians make up anywhere from 40 to 70 percent of the student population at top public high schools 
like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science in New York City, Lowell in San Francisco and Thomas Jefferson 
in Alexandria, Va., where admissions are largely based on exams and grades.
    In a 2009 study of more than 9,000 students who applied to selective universities, the sociologists 
Thomas J. Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford found that white students were three times 
more likely to be admitted than Asians with the same academic record.
    Sound familiar? In the 1920s, as high-achieving Jews began to compete with WASP prep schoolers, 
Ivy League schools started asking about family background and sought vague qualities like “character,” 
“vigor,” “manliness” and “leadership” to cap Jewish enrollment. These unofficial Jewish quotas weren’t 
lifted until the early 1960s, as the sociologist Jerome Karabel found in his 2005 history of admissions
practices at Harvard, Yale and Princeton.
    In the 1920s, people asked: will Harvard still be Harvard with so many Jews? Today we ask: will 
Harvard still be Harvard with so many Asians? Yale’s student population is 58 percent white and 
18 percent Asian. Would it be such a calamity if those numbers were reversed?
    As the journalist Daniel Golden revealed in his 2006 book “The Price of Admission,” far more 
attention has been devoted to race-conscious affirmative action at public universities (which the 
Supreme Court has scaled back and might soon eliminate altogether) than to the special preferences 
elite universities afford to the children of (overwhelmingly white) donors and alumni.
    The way we treat these children will influence the America we become. If our most renowned 
schools set implicit quotas for high-achieving Asian-Americans, we are sending a message to all 
students that hard work and good grades may be a fool’s errand.
    Carolyn Chen is an associate professor of sociology and director of the Asian American 
Studies Program at Northwestern.
For full story, see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/asians-too-smart-for-their-own-good.html?_r=0


11/29/12 National Review: "Why Aren’t Asians Republicans?"
By John Yoo
    These characteristics should attract both groups to the Republican party. I think the reason Jews and 
Asians, however, vote against their interests may be because both groups have been concentrated in cities. 
One of the big demographic differences in the election, of course, was how the cities went for Obama, while 
the rural areas and many of the suburbs went for Romney. Perhaps it is not just ethnicity, or class, although 
these no doubt have something to do with it. It may be because Asians, like Jews when they first emigrated, 
have congregated in cities, which are run by Democratic-party machines who may demand a certain level of 
“loyalty,” shall we say, to compete for city business or to deal with city licenses. To the extent Asians then 
seek to leave the cities through education and entering the professions, they move into other areas 
controlled by the Left.
For full story, see http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/334436/why-arent-asians-republicans-john-yoo# 


11/28/12 The American Conservative: "The Myth of American Meritocracy: 
How corrupt are Ivy League admissions?"
By Ron Unz 
    There certainly does seem considerable anecdotal evidence that many Asians perceive their chances of 
elite admission as being drastically reduced by their racial origins.17 For example, our national newspapers 
have revealed that students of part-Asian background have regularly attempted to conceal the non-white 
side of their ancestry when applying to Harvard and other elite universities out of concern it would greatly 
reduce their chances of admission.18 Indeed, widespread perceptions of racial discrimination are almost 
certainly the primary factor behind the huge growth in the number of students refusing to reveal their racial 
background at top universities, with the percentage of Harvard students classified as “race unknown” 
having risen from almost nothing to a regular 5–15 percent of all undergraduates over the last twenty years, 
with similar levels reached at other elite schools.
    Such fears that checking the “Asian” box on an admissions application may lead to rejection are hardly 
unreasonable, given that studies have documented a large gap between the average test scores of whites 
and Asians successfully admitted to elite universities. Princeton sociologist Thomas J. Espenshade and 
his colleagues have demonstrated that among undergraduates at highly selective schools such as the Ivy 
League, white students have mean scores 310 points higher on the 1600 SAT scale than their black 
classmates, but Asian students average 140 points above whites.19 The former gap is an automatic 
consequence of officially acknowledged affirmative action policies, while the latter appears somewhat 
mysterious.
For full story, see http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/ 


10/30/12 New York Observer: "The New Jews?"
By The Editors 
    The strong Asian-American presence at New York’s elite public high schools has been years in the 
making. Now, however, comes the backlash: parents are complaining, in essence, that schools like 
Stuyvesant and Bronx Science are, you know, too Asian.
http://observer.com/2012/10/the-new-jews/


10/15/12 City Watch Los Angeles: "Supremes Affirmative-Action Debate Spotlights UC’s Shabby History,"
by Chris Reed 
    The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Fisher v. the University of Texas, the latest 
big affirmative-action case to reach SCOTUS. Conservative justices used their questions to establish how 
intentionally slippery and vague UT officials are in explaining how race is included as a factor in deciding 
admissions to their first-rate public university.
    To students of California politics and academia, what should be especially interesting is how the justices 
deal with the claim that fuzzy, “holistic” judgments that lead to less-qualified minority students being admitted 
over much more-qualified white or Asian students are somehow less objectionable than hard quotas. 
In California, this “holistic” approach to college admissions was long ago revealed as an explicit attempt 
to game Proposition 209, the 1996 state law which bans racial quotas in state government.
    And which journalistic outlet made this point best? The New York Times! Economics columnist David 
Leonhardt wrote a long piece in the Sunday magazine on Sept. 30, 2007, explaining how the UC system, 
especially UCLA, used fuzzy talk to advance a clearly racial agenda — one with far more benefits for 
the kids of affluent blacks and Hispanics than poor Asians (or poor whites).
    Here was my take then:
    “One of the aspects of the University of California system/affirmative action debate that consistently gets 
short shrift in media coverage is that in the old quota system, African-American and Latino students with 
less impressive scholastic records weren’t bumping white students, they were bumping Asian-American 
students. So Asian-Americans paid the biggest price for a policy that has as its central rationale the need 
to remedy the dominant white culture’s historic discrimination against minorities. Huh?
    Leonhardt mentioned the following pretty much in passing:
    “Even as the number of low-income black freshmen [at UCLA] soared this year, the overall number of 
low-income freshmen fell somewhat. The rise in low-income black students was accompanied by a fall in 
low-income Asian students — not a decline in well-off students. So under the old quota system, Asian-
American students in general paid the price for society’s attempts to atone for white racism. Now under 
the new surreptitious affirmative-action program, poor Asian-American students are paying the highest 
price. If this is social justice, count me out.”
    This crucial detail in how affirmative action, disguised or otherwise, works was a focus of Justice Alito 
in Wednesday’s questioning:
    “JUSTICE ALITO: Well, I thought that the whole purpose of affirmative action was to help students who 
come from underprivileged backgrounds, but you make a very different argument that I don’t think I’ve 
ever seen before. The top 10 percent plan admits lots of African Americans — lots of Hispanics and a 
fair number of African Americans.
    “But you say, well, it’s — it’s faulty, because it doesn’t admit enough African Americans and Hispanics 
who come from privileged backgrounds. And you specifically have the example of the child of successful 
professionals in Dallas. Now, that’s your argument?
    “If you have -¬you have an applicant whose parents are — let’s say they’re — one of them is a partner 
in your law firm in Texas, another one is a part — is another corporate lawyer. They have income that 
puts them in the top 1 percent of earners in the country, and they have -¬parents both have graduate 
degrees. They deserve a leg-up against, let’s say, an Asian or a white applicant whose parents are 
absolutely average in terms of education and income?”
    By a quarter-century ago, it was apparent that innocent Asian-Americans were the victims of affirmative
action in UC admissions, not historically oppressive whites. This is from a September 1987 Los Angeles 
Times story:
    “There may be a parallel between what is happening to Asian-Americans now and what happened to 
Jews in the 1920s and 1930s at some Ivy League schools. … And, like Jews before them, the members 
of the new model minority contend that they have begun to bump up against artificial barriers to their 
advancement.
    “Casual inspection of the Berkeley campus … makes any suggestion of anti-Asian bias seem 
implausible. Asians represent 6.7% of California’s population, but they account for 25.5% of the Berkeley 
student body. …
    “But … the percentage of Asians in the student body might be even higher, the critics contend, if 
admissions were still based strictly on merit. Since the mid-1970s, both Americans of Asian descent 
and immigrants from Asia have so outperformed Caucasian, black and Latino students in high schools 
that universities have manipulated admissions criteria to hold back the Asian influx, say the critics.
    “‘As soon as the percentages of Asian students began reaching double digits at some universities, 
suddenly a red light went on,’ said Ling-Chi Wang, a peppery Chinese-born professor of ethnic studies 
at Berkeley and one of the university’s severest critics. ‘Since then, Asian-American admissions rates 
have either stabilized or declined … university officials see the prevalence of Asians as a problem.’”
For the complete article, see http://www.citywatchla.com/component/content/article/317-8box-right/3922-supremes-affirmative-action-debate-spotlights-ucs-shabby-history


10/12/12 Inside Higher Ed: "Think Outside 'The Box'"
By Kevin Kiley
    Denver – Don’t check the box.
    It’s the advice that’s given to Asian-American students by friends, family members, guidance counselors, 
even teachers, in the college application process. “The box” in question (actually more of a circle these days) 
refers to the selection of “Asian” when college applications ask students how they identify themselves.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/12/asian-american-students-perceive-bias-university-admissions-and-counselors-want 


7/17/12 press release from Civil Rights Project UCLA: "Bans on Affirmative Action Reduces Discrimination
Against Asian Americans" 
(original title: "Bans on Affirmative Action Shown to Reduce Enrollment of Graduate Students of Color 
at Universities in CA, FL, TX, WA")
[Re-written to remove Bigot for the Left bias against Asian Americans]
    Los Angeles--A new study published today by the Civil Rights Project at UCLA examines the impact of 
affirmative action bans, across a number of years in several states, on the enrollment of underrepresented 
students of color. These latest data show that the bans have led to marked declines in discrimination 
against Asian Americans in graduate studies. 
    The new report examined years of data on affirmative action bans in four states -- Texas, California, 
Washington, and Florida. The results show the bans have reduced by 12 percent the average discrimination 
against Asian Americans in graduate programs overall.  The proportion of graduate students of color 
(African American, Latino and Native American) has decreased 12% across all graduate programs. 
In engineering, the bans have led to a 26-percent reduction in the mean proportion of all graduate students 
of color; a 19-percent decline in the natural sciences; a 15.7-percent drop in the social sciences, and 11.8
percent drop in the humanities. 
    Laws in seven states (Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Washington) 
now prohibit public postsecondary institutions from considering race or ethnicity in any way in admissions. 
Prior studies showed that affirmative action bans have contributed to less discrimination against Asian
Americans at selective undergraduate institutions and schools of law. This new study shows that the bans 
have also led to less discrimination against Asian Americans in other graduate programs, with the largest 
declines in science-related fields of study. 
http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/news/press-releases/crp-press-releases-2012/bans-on-affirmative-action-shown-to-reduce-enrollment-of-graduate-students-of-color-at-institutions-of-higher-education  

7/18/12 Inside Higher Ed: "Grad Student Diversity at Risk?"
by Scott Jaschik
    Graduate professional enrollments of black, Latino and Native American students could drop 
significantly if the Supreme Court bars colleges from considering race in admissions, warns a new 
report. The fall could be particularly significant in engineering, where these enrollments are notably 
small.
    The study examined minority graduate enrollments in four states -- California, Florida, Texas (where 
the ban has since been lifted) and Washington State -- that have had bans on the consideration of race
in admissions decisions during the years since those bans were adopted. Across graduate programs, 
the enrollment of underrepresented minority groups has fallen 12 percent under the bans, with the share 
of these students among graduate student bodies falling from 9.9 percent to 8.7 percent. The following 
table shows shifts by field of study.
    Minority Share of Graduate Enrollments in 4 States, Before and After Bans on Consideration of Race 
in Admissions
Field    % of Minority Graduate Enrollments Before Ban    % After Ban Drop Since Ban
Engineering 6.2% 4.6% -26%
Natural sciences 7.8% 6.3% -19%
Social sciences 12.1% 10.2.% -16%
Humanities 10.2% 9.0% -12%
For complete article: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/07/18/new-study-explores-impact-affirmative-action-bans-graduate-enrollments


6/11/12 The Weekly Standard: "The New Jews: They're Asian Americans,"
by Ethan Epstein
    Since 2008, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has been investigating whether 
Princeton “discriminates against Asians, on the basis of race or national origin, in its admissions process”
—that is, whether students of Asian descent are being penalized for their background when applying to the 
school. 
    In August 2011, an Indian-American student filed a complaint with the Department of Education against 
Harvard alleging anti-Asian discrimination in its admissions department. (The student ultimately withdrew 
the complaint in February 2012.) 
    Michele Hernández, author of A Is for Admissions and former admissions staffer at Dartmouth, recently 
said that “after 10 years of [counseling] and 4 years in Dartmouth admissions, I don’t think it’s intentional, 
but I think there is discrimination. If you look at the numbers, you can basically see that [if you are applying
to many selective colleges] you have to have higher-than-average scores if you are an Asian.”
    A Center for Equal Opportunity study, cited on the Manhattan Institute’s website in the wake of the Harvard
complaint, found that Asian applicants to the University of Michigan in 2005 had a median SAT score that 
was “50 points higher than the median score of white students who were accepted, 140 points higher than 
that of Hispanics and 240 points higher than that of blacks.” The center also found that “among applicants
with a 1240 SAT score and 3.2 grade point average in 2005, the university admitted 10 percent of Asian 
Americans, 14 percent of whites, 88 percent of Hispanics and 92 percent of blacks.” 
    After the state of California abolished racial preferences, the percentage of Asian Americans accepted 
at Berkeley increased from 34.6 percent in 1997, the last year of legal affirmative action, to 42 percent 
entering in fall 2006,” clear evidence that the group had been unfairly penalized under the previous regime.
    In 2009, Thomas Espenshade, a Princeton professor of sociology, co-authored a report that revealed 
students of Asian descent did indeed face discrimination at colleges and universities beyond the Ivy League. 
According to Espenshade’s analysis, an Asian student needs to score 140 points higher than whites on the 
math and reading portions of the SAT, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points higher than blacks 
to have the same chances of admission at the nation’s top schools. “[A]ll other things equal,” Espenshade 
told Inside Higher Ed, “Asian-American students are at a disadvantage relative to white students, and at 
an even bigger disadvantage relative to black and Latino students.”
    The Associated Press reported late last year that increasing numbers of Asian applicants are neglecting
to identify themselves as such—students of mixed descent, for example, fail to mention their Asian heritage 
at all, checking the box for “Caucasian” and leaving “Asian” blank.
    For complete article, see http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/new-jews_646422.html 


Asian American Legal Foundation amicus brief in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/11-345-tsac-AsianAmericanLegalFoundation.pdf   

80-20 Educational Foundation amicus brief in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/pdf/amicus-brief.pdf 

5/30/12: 80-20 Educational Foundation conducted a nation-wide survey of Asian Americans regarding
college admission policies. The 47,000+ participants selected a "race-neutral" policy by a ratio of 52 to 1. 
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/projects/colleges.asp to see the survey itself, its methodology, 
and the 50,000+ survey takers' names, cities and states.


4/4/12 Philadelphia Inquirer: "Colleges resist Asian Americans' success,"
By Jonathan Zimmerman
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/146010045.html 
    In 1966, the American Jewish Committee reported that less than 1 percent of American college and 
university presidents were Jewish. Since the end of World War II, about 1,000 presidencies had been 
filled, and only one - that's right, one - went to a Jew.
    It wasn't for want of good candidates. Most institutions had removed long-standing quotas on Jews, 
who made up 10 to 12 percent of American college students and faculty. But when it came to choosing 
leaders, the committee concluded, "bias is at work."
    It still is. Today, however, it has a different target: Asian Americans. Like Jews in the 1960s, they hold 
just 1 percent of higher-education presidencies. Dartmouth's Jim Yong Kim is the only Asian American 
who has ever led an Ivy League institution. And President Obama recently nominated him to head the 
World Bank.
    But Asian Americans also continue to face a form of discrimination in university admissions. And until 
we change that, we probably won't get more Asian American college leaders, either.
    According to Princeton sociologist Thomas J. Espenshade, Asian Americans have to score about 
140 points higher than whites on the SAT, all other things being equal, to get into elite colleges. Everyone 
knows that blacks and Hispanics get a leg up in the admissions sweepstakes. But how many realize that 
whites enjoy affirmative action when they go head-to-head with Asians?
    That just doesn't make any sense. African Americans and Hispanics have suffered discrimination 
across our history; whites haven't. But if we make whites compete on a level playing field with Asians, 
some argue, our colleges and universities will become, well, too Asian.
    That's exactly what American university leaders said about Jews in the early 20th century, when elite 
institutions decided to limit Jewish admissions. But first they had to figure out who was Jewish. So 
Harvard asked applicants to provide their mother's maiden names. It even inquired, "What change, 
if any, has been made since birth in your own name or that of your father?" And most colleges started 
to require the submission of photographs, which would allegedly reveal what a Dartmouth official called 
"Hebrew physiognomy."
    The student quotas started to be lifted in the late 1950s and early '60s, as did similar limits on Jewish
faculty. Restrictions against Jewish college presidents lasted a little longer, as the 1966 report confirmed.
But the following year, the University of Chicago appointed Edward H. Levi, the son of a rabbi, as its 
president. By 1971, Penn and Dartmouth both had Jewish presidents. Today, all but one of the eight Ivy 
League schools has been led by a Jew.
    Meanwhile, other underrepresented groups have also gained entry into the halls of university power. 
By 2009, 5.9 percent of university presidents were African American and 4.6 percent were Hispanic. 
But you can still count the number of Asian American presidents of four-year colleges on two hands. 
Here in the Delaware Valley, Ursinus' Bobby Fong is the only one.
    You can't explain that without thinking about admissions. Almost every elite institution is trying to recruit
more blacks and Hispanics, so hiring a president from one of those groups makes sense. But an Asian 
American president might stamp the institution as "too" Asian, which is what universities are trying to avoid.
    We need to ask why. After California forbade state universities from considering race in admissions, 
the Asian American share of the student body at the University of California, Berkeley, jumped from 
20 percent to 40 percent. At the California Institute of Technology, which doesn't consider race either, 
about a third of the students are now Asian.
    Both institutions have benefited from an infusion of talented students, many of whom would not get 
into other elite universities simply because of their race. The people who lose out are less-qualified 
whites, who would fare better in a system that limits Asian admissions.
    And maybe that's the real story here: Beneath all the rhetoric, we're simply afraid of a minority that 
has done too well. That's why Jews were so threatening for so many years, and why Asians are now. 
Shame on us for making the same mistake twice.
    Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history at New York University and lives in Narberth. He is the author 
of "Small Wonder: The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory" (Yale University Press).


2/5/12 MindingtheCampus.com: "Let's Be Frank about Anti-Asian Admission Policies,"
By John S. Rosenberg
    On February 2 Daniel Golden, former Wall Street Journal reporter and author of a highly regarded 
book on college admissions, reported in Bloomberg's Business Week that Harvard and Princeton are 
being investigated by the Dept. of Education's Office for Civil Rights for discrimination against Asians.
    It's not the first time. In fact, for the past decade or so there has been a rising tide of accusations that 
the Ivies and other selective institutions treat Asians as the "new Jews" (referring to quotas on Jews in 
the Ivies and elsewhere early in the 20th Century, and often beyond), holding them to much higher 
admission standards than applicants from other groups in order to prevent their "over representation" 
and thus make room for the "under-represented" blacks and Hispanics admitted under much lower 
affirmative action standards. 
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2012/02/a_yellow_peril_for_the_ivies.html 


2/3/12 San Francisco Chronicle: "What Harvard Owes Its Top Asian-American Applicants"
by Stephen Hsu
    Feb. 3 (Bloomberg) -- It's a common belief among Asian- American families that their children are held 
to higher academic standards than college applicants from other ethnic groups. Such practices were openly 
acknowledged after investigations at universities like Berkeley and Stanford in the 1980s and 1990s.
    Have they been corrected?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/02/03/bloomberg_articlesLYSL8I07SXKY01-LYSL8.DTL


2/3/12 Inside Higher Ed: "Is It Bias? Is It Legal?"
By Scott Jaschik
    One applicant who came to Michele Hernandez this fall for help getting into college had two academic 
passions – science and Latin – and great grades, too. With report after report calling on colleges to attract 
more talent to STEM fields, and jobs going unfilled for lack of science and technology expertise, perhaps 
play up the science? Not for this applicant. Hernandez, the author of A Is for Admission and the founder of a 
high-end private counseling service, said she steered the applicant in the other direction. He is an Asian 
American.
    "I told him Latin was way better to stress, and that helped him a ton," she said. (He is already in to his first
choice institution.) If, as an Asian American, you apply, "as another biology major, as another pre-med, you 
are doomed," Hernandez said.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/02/03/federal-probe-raises-new-questions-discrimination-against-asian-american-applicants


2/3/12 Philadelphia Inquirer: "Ursinus' Fong a rare Asian American college president," 
By Jeff Gammage 
    Ursinus College made a highly unusual move when it named Bobby Fong its president last year.
Not because of his qualifications - he's brilliant, educated at Harvard, editor of a volume of poetry, a world 
authority on Oscar Wilde.
    It was unusual because Fong is Chinese American. And in the United States, Asians rarely get to be 
college presidents.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/138617734.html?viewAll=y


2/2/12 Bloomberg Business Week: "Harvard Targeted in U.S. Asian-American Discrimination Probe,"
By Daniel Golden 
    (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Education Department is probing complaints that Harvard University and 
Princeton University discriminate against Asian-Americans in undergraduate admissions.
    The department’s Office for Civil Rights is investigating a complaint it received in August that 
Harvard rejected an Asian- American candidate for the current freshman class based on race or 
national origin, a department spokesman said. The agency is looking into a similar August 2011 
allegation against Princeton as part of a review begun in 2008 of that school’s handling of Asian-
American candidates, said the spokesman, who declined to be identified, citing department policy.
    Both complaints involve the same applicant, who was among the top students in his California high 
school class and whose family originally came from India, according to the applicant’s father, who 
declined to be identified.
    The new complaints, along with a case appealed last September to the U.S. Supreme Court 
challenging preferences for blacks and Hispanics in college admissions, may stir up the longstanding 
debate about whether elite universities discriminate against Asian-Americans, the nation’s fastest- 
growing and most affluent racial category.
    Like Jews in the first half of the 20th century, who faced quotas at Harvard, Princeton, and other Ivy 
League schools, Asian-Americans are over-represented at top universities relative to their population, 
yet must meet a higher standard than other applicants based on measures such as test scores and 
high school grades, according to several academic studies.
    Higher Bar
    Asian-Americans comprised 16 percent of Harvard undergraduates in the 2010-2011 academic 
year, down from 18 percent in 2005-2006, according to the university’s website.
    Fluctuating Rates
    The proportion of Asian-Americans among Princeton undergraduates increased to 17.7% this year
from 14.1% in 2007- 2008. 
    A Chinese-American student, Jian Li, filed a complaint against Princeton with the Education 
Department in 2006, alleging discrimination on the basis of race or national origin. Li, who scored the 
maximum 2400 on the SAT and 2390 -- 10 points below the ceiling -- on subject tests in physics, 
chemistry and calculus, was denied admission by Princeton, Harvard, Stanford University, and the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    In 2008, the Office for Civil Rights broadened its examination of Li’s complaint into a compliance 
review of whether Princeton discriminates against Asian-Americans.
    ‘Substantially Identical’
    Because the 2011 complaint against Princeton “raised substantially identical issues,” the agency is 
folding it into the compliance review, the Education Department spokesman said. Li enrolled at Yale 
University and later transferred to Harvard, graduating in 2010. He declined to comment, citing 
concerns about a backlash.
    The Education Department received a complaint in September that Yale, in New Haven, 
Connecticut, rejected an Asian-American applicant on the basis of race, the department spokesman 
said. The complainant later withdrew the allegation. It also involved the Indian-American student from 
California, his father said.
    Asian-Americans make up 15 percent of Yale undergraduates.
    Asian-American applicants have to outperform their counterparts from other backgrounds on the 
SAT to gain entry to elite universities, recent studies show.
    Test Scores
    Asian-Americans admitted to the University of Wisconsin’s flagship Madison campus in 2008 had 
a median math and reading SAT score of 1370 out of 1600, compared to 1340 for whites, 1250 for 
Hispanics, and 1190 for blacks, according to a 2011 study by the Center for Equal Opportunity, a 
Falls Church, Virginia-based nonprofit group that opposes racial preferences in college admissions.
    Asian-American students who enrolled at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina in 2001 and 
2002 scored 1457 out of 1600 on the math and reading portion of the SAT, compared to 1416 for 
whites, 1347 for Hispanics and 1275 for blacks, according to a 2011 study co-authored by Duke 
economist Peter Arcidiacono.
    Higher Standard
    If all other credentials are equal, Asian-Americans need to score 140 points more than whites, 
270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points above African-Americans out of a maximum 1600 
on the math and reading SAT to have the same chance of admission to a private college, according 
to “No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal,” a 2009 book co-written by Princeton sociologist Thomas 
Espenshade.
    Budget-strapped state schools such as the University of California at San Diego are reducing 
enrollment of Asian-Americans to make room for international students from China and elsewhere 
who pay almost twice the tuition of in-state residents, Bloomberg News reported Dec. 28.
    Asian-American organizations are weighing in on both sides of a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of 
Abigail Noel Fisher, a white student who was rejected in 2008 by the University of Texas at Austin. 
Fisher v. Texas marks the first federal court challenge to affirmative action in college admissions filed 
since a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger case, which upheld the use 
of race by the University of Michigan law school to achieve a “critical mass” of under- represented 
minority groups such as blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans.
    University of Texas
    The University of Texas automatically admits in-state applicants in the top 10 percent of their high 
school classes, who make up most of its students. It then considers race in selecting the remainder 
of its freshman class.
    The suit contends that the top 10 percent program is enough to ensure campuswide diversity. 
The university responds that, without taking race into account, many individual courses would have 
hardly any black or Hispanic students.
    After federal district and appeals courts upheld the university’s position, the U.S. Supreme Court
is considering whether to hear the Fisher case. The Justice Department supports the university.
    Discrimination
    “Asian-American students suffer discrimination at the hands of the University of Texas at Austin,” 
the Asian-American Legal Foundation said in a friend-of-the-court brief for the plaintiff. 
    While the university justifies its preference for Hispanic applicants as an effort to diversify 
classrooms, it has more Hispanic students than Asian-Americans, the San Francisco- based 
foundation said.
    There are 14.7 million Americans of Asian descent only, plus 2.6 million who are multiracial 
including Asian, according to the 2010 U.S. census. The combined 17.3 million comprises 5.6 
percent of the population, up 46 percent from 2000. Median household income for single-race 
Asian-Americans exceeds $65,000, compared with a national average of $50,000. Half of those 
25 and older hold college degrees, almost double the national average.
    Harvard Revisited
    The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights first examined Harvard’s handling of Asian-
American applicants more than 20 years ago. It turned up stereotyping by Harvard evaluators, such 
as this comment about one Asian-American candidate: “He’s quiet and, of course, wants to be 
a doctor.”
    It also documented that Harvard admitted Asian-Americans at a lower rate than white applicants
even though the Asian- Americans had slightly stronger SAT scores and grades. 
    Nevertheless, the agency concluded in 1990 that Harvard didn’t violate civil rights laws because 
preferences for alumni children and recruited athletes, rather than racial discrimination, accounted 
for the gap.
For full story, see: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-02/harvard-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe.html


2/2/12 biggovernment.com: "Did Top Liberal Arts College Falsify SAT Data to Legitimize Racial 
Preferences?"
by Charles C. Johnson
    Claremont McKenna College, a private liberal arts college in Los Angeles, has earned international 
infamy for fraudulently misreporting its SAT scores to game the U.S. News & World Report rankings. 
Richard Vos, dean of admissions since 1987, resigned in disgrace Monday, starting a nationwide debate 
about the role of SATs in higher education and the integrity of Claremont’s admission process. But absent 
from any analysis is this: Vos began falsifying SAT scores in 2005, right around the time Claremont began 
to institutionalize racial preferences. An investigation of the data since released suggests that Claremont 
manipulated the school’s scores to cover up admittance of under-qualified minority students.
http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/02/01/did-top-liberal-arts-college-falsify-sat-data-to-legitimize-racial-preferences/#more-420532


12/16/11 New York Post: "Hiding their race,"
By Rich Lowry
    To check or not to check the Asian box? That’s the choice faced by Asian-American students applying to what are supposed to be the most tolerant places on Earth: the nation’s colleges.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/hiding_their_race_sKvjDf84vh22J21Ri7D


12/3/11 Associated Press: "Some Asians' college strategy: Don't check 'Asian'"
by Jesse Washington
    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.
    "I didn't want to put 'Asian' down," Olmstead says, "because my mom told me there's 
discrimination against Asians in the application process."
http://news.yahoo.com/asians-college-strategy-dont-check-asian-174442977.html



11/14/11 The Cornell Daily Sun: "No Asians Need Apply,"
By Judah Bellin
    My father likes to tell a story about my grandfather, a former professor at Columbia’s school of public 
health. At a meeting with colleagues in the faculty club at Cornell Hospital, he noticed the presence of 
Jews, Italians and other ethnic groups at the table, and recalled the ugly history of ethnic discrimination 
in college and medical school admissions. “Years ago they wouldn’t admit us into this school,” he 
remarked. “Now look where we are.”
    When will Asians have this moment?
    It’s hard to deny that the admissions process is stacked against Asian students. A study on affirmative 
action by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade showed that when numerous factors are controlled for, 
Hispanic students receive a admissions boost equivalent to around 130 points on the SAT, while black 
students receive a boost of 310 points. Asian students, however, face a 140 point penalty. It was therefore 
no surprise when, after California outlawed the use of racial preferences in admissions, the representation 
of Asian Americans jumped significantly at University of California schools.
    We can’t really gauge Cornell’s role in penalizing Asian applicants, mostly because the admissions 
office is always hesitant to reveal information about minority students. However, we must pay careful 
attention to our treatment of Asian students. I do know of one former admissions officer who likes to boast 
about rejecting scores of Asians because he didn’t want them in his classes. Given the faculty 
condescension towards Asian students that I and many others have observed, it wouldn’t surprise me if 
more admissions officers acted on similar impulses.
    True, any information on this phenomenon is anecdotal. However, this will also be true years from now. 
We won’t uncover evidence of rigid quota systems, or committees tasked with addressing “the Jewish 
question,” a la Harvard and Yale in the early 20th century. I suspect, though, that future interviews with 
former admissions officers will reveal that “the Asian question” — what to do about massive numbers of 
qualified Asian applicants? — has been both a persistent worry and a major factor in admissions 
decisions.
    Such subtle discrimination would be consistent with Cornell’s history. We never instituted a rigid quota 
system for Jewish students; however, there was always an underlying concern that Jews might overtake 
the University due to their disproportionate success on standardized tests. Therefore, President Livingston 
Farrand asserted that though “Cornell had not adopted any general anti-Semitic rule,” it could not “permit 
itself to be so flooded by Jewish students as to kill non-Jewish attendance.” Though we do not know how 
this affected Jewish admissions at the undergraduate colleges, a similar attitude likely influenced the 
dean of Cornell’s medical school, who in 1940 described his attempt to “limit the number of Jews 
admitted to each class to roughly the proportion of Jews in the population of the state.”
    I have no doubt that admissions officers now use similar rhetoric about “flooding” with regards to Asian 
students, both at Cornell and around the country. Of course, this is not entirely unwarranted: If Cornell 
wishes to create leaders for many different segments of our society, a class of qualified students 
representing mostly one ethnic, racial, socioeconomic or political group is undesirable. However, history 
suggests that this attitude may both reflect and reinforce widely held, yet unwarranted, cultural stereotypes.
    And indeed, many members of the student body will also lump together all Asian students. This has a 
decisive impact on our social fabric. Indeed, it is no secret that many of our campus organizations — 
especially, but not exclusively, fraternities — have an unspoken fear of appearing “too Asian,” just as many
of Cornell’s fraternities, sports teams and ROTC units were careful not to accept or promote too many 
Jews in the early 20th century.
    Jewish students eventually overcame discrimination in both college admissions and campus life. 
However, their success story provides little guidance for Asian students for a few important reasons. 
The first is that Jews succeeded due to the University’s newly placed emphasis on merit, as measured 
by exam scores and grades. As Espenshade showed, Asian applicants’ merit won’t get them in the door.
    More importantly, the “Asian question” has emerged after we’ve made tremendous strides toward 
eliminating racial discrimination, and after our society has determined which minorities should benefit 
from racial preferences. Our institutions — particularly college admissions officers — have little room 
to accommodate new minority groups.
    A Chinese friend once expressed frustration with his campus organization, because, by his telling, 
at their recruitment meeting they considered their Asian applicants as interchangeable but other ethnic 
minorities as worthy of individualized attention. “I think it’s really sad,” he said, after we discussed his 
story in light of Jewish quotas. “So many Chinese parents dream of sending their kids to America, but 
they have no idea that this is happening.”
    His statement resonated deeply with me, but his subsequent point, that Asian students will continue 
applying to Cornell no matter how poorly we treat them, resonated more. In their minds, the 
opportunities represented by our institution, and by our country, outweigh any discrimination they might 
anticipate or even experience. All citizens, and all students — especially those like myself, whose 
grandparents faced similar challenges but persevered — must live up to their expectations.
    Judah Bellin is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences.



9/16/11 Center for Equal Opportunity: "Racial Preferences in Wisconsin,"
by Linda Chavez 
http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/929/119/
    The campus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison erupted this week after the release of two 
studies documenting the heavy use of race in deciding which students to admit to the undergraduate
and law schools. The evidence of discrimination is undeniable, and the reaction by critics was 
undeniably dishonest and thuggish.
    The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO), which I founded in 1995 to expose and challenge 
misguided race-based public policies, conducted the studies based on an analysis of the university's
own admissions data. But the university was none too keen on releasing the data, which CEO 
obtained through filing Freedom of Information Act requests only after a successful legal challenge 
went all the way to the state supreme court.
    It's no wonder the university wanted to keep the information secret. The studies show that a black 
or Hispanic undergraduate applicant was more than 500 times likelier to be admitted to Wisconsin-
Madison than a similarly qualified white or Asian applicant. The odds ratio favoring black law school 
applicants over similarly qualified white applicants was 61 to 1.
    The median SAT scores of black undergraduates who were admitted were 150 points lower than
whites or Asians, while the median Hispanic scores were roughly 100 points lower. And median 
high school rankings for both blacks and Hispanics were also lower than for either whites or Asians.
    CEO has published studies of racial double standards in admissions at scores of public colleges
and universities across the country with similar findings, but none has caused such a violent reaction.
    Instead of addressing the findings of the study, the university's vice provost for diversity, Damon 
A. Williams, dishonestly told students that "CEO has one mission and one mission only: dismantle 
the gains that were achieved by the civil rights movement." In fact, CEO's only mission is to promote
color-blind equal opportunity so that, in Martin Luther King's vision, no one will be judged by the color
of his or her skin.
    Egged on by inflammatory comments by university officials, student groups organized a flashmob
via a Facebook page that was filled with propaganda and outright lies about CEO wanting to dismantle
their student groups. More than a hundred angry students stormed the press conference at the 
Doubletree Hotel in Madison, where CEO president Roger Clegg was releasing the study.
    The hotel management described what took place in a press statement afterward: "Unfortunately, 
when escorting meeting attendees out of the hotel through a private entrance, staff were then rushed by
a mob of protestors, throwing employees to the ground. The mob became increasingly physically violent
when forcing themselves into the meeting room where the press conference had already ended, filling 
it over fire-code capacity. Madison police arrived on the scene after the protestors had stormed the hotel."
    But the outrageous behavior didn't end there -- and it wasn't just students but also faculty who engaged
in disgraceful conduct. Later the same day of the press conference, Clegg debated UW law professor 
Larry Church on campus. The crowd booed, hissed, and shouted insults, continuously interrupting 
Clegg during the debate.
    Having used Facebook to organize the flashmob, students and some faculty extended their use of 
social media and tweeted the debate live. Even with Twitter's 140-character limit, you'd think participants
would be able to come up with something more substantive than the repeated use of the label "racist" 
to describe Clegg and his arguments against racial double standards, but hundreds of tweets exhibited 
little more than hysterical rants and personal attacks.
    Perhaps the most offensive tweet was posted by Sara Goldrick-Rab, an associate professor of 
educational policy studies and sociology. After announcing that she was "Getting set to live blog this debate
between a racist and a scholar," she tweeted that Clegg sounded "like the whitest white boy I've ever heard."
The only racism in evidence came from the defenders of the university's race-based admissions policies, 
such as Professor Goldrick-Rab.
    You'd think that a responsible university would denounce the intimidation and lack of civility by its 
students and faculty. Instead, Vice Provost Williams told the student newspaper, "I'm most excited about 
how well the students represented themselves, the passion with which they engaged, the respectful tone in 
how they did it and the thoughtfulness of their questions and interactions."
    It appears that not only are the university's admissions policies deeply discriminatory, but also that 
university officials applaud name-calling, distortion and outright physical assault.
    Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." 



7/29/11 Wall Street Journal: "The New Chinese Exclusion Act: Self-appointed civil rights defenders 
support rules that keep Asian kids out of top schools,"
By Charles C. Johnson 
    With Washington focused on a last-minute debt deal, one California congresswoman wants her 
colleagues to turn their attention to an anti-immigration law that's been off the books for 70 years. 
Democrat Judy Chu of the 32nd District in Los Angeles County has called on fellow members to join her 
in a "Resolution of Regret" over the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882—a bill that House Minority Leader 
Nancy Pelosi endorsed on Wednesday.
    Setting aside Ms. Chu's sense of priorities, there's a deep irony in her resolution. Even as she calls 
public attention to sins committed while Chester A. Arthur was president, Ms. Chu staunchly supports the 
most harmful form of anti-Asian discrimination in the U.S. today: racial preferences in hiring and university
admissions.
    Ms. Chu's resolution rightly notes that the Chinese Exclusion Act was "incompatible with the basic 
founding principles of equality recognized in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution."
 It goes on to call on Congress to "reaffirm its commitment to preserving the same civil rights and 
constitutional protections for people of Chinese or other Asian descent in the United States accorded to 
all others." Yet "the same" rights aren't what Ms. Chu wants for Asians today.
    Consider her record. In 1996, while a City Council member in Monterey Park, Ms. Chu campaigned 
to defeat Proposition 209—a ballot initiative that would have outlawed the use of racial references by the
state government. (The proposition passed 54.5% to 45%.)
    In 2003, as a state assemblywoman, she crusaded against Proposition 54, which would bar government
from collecting racial data. She argued the law would make it impossible to study hate-crime laws or 
suicide rates across ethnic groups. In fact, Prop. 54 did no such thing—it had clear exemptions for law-
enforcement or medical data—but it was nonetheless defeated. 
    Prop. 209 was the nation's first referendum explicitly banning a state's public institutions from taking into
account race, sex or ethnicity in hiring or admissions. For years, administrators in the University of 
California system denied discriminating against Asian students. Race, they insisted, was merely used as
a "plus" factor, the standard that the Supreme Court set out in Regents of the University of California v. 
Bakke (1978).
    Yet after Prop. 209 passed, Asian-American enrollment grew. At UC Berkeley, the system's flagship, 
Asian-American enrollment grew to 43% in 2008 from 37.3% in 1995. At the University of California 
San Diego, it grew to 50% from 36% in 1995. Asian-Americans now make up a majority in seven of the
nine UC campuses. 
    Evidence from Florida and Texas, where preferences were temporarily abolished by court order, 
confirms that Asian-Americans are systematically kept out of college in favor of less qualified applicants
benefitting from government-sanctioned racial discrimination. A 2005 study of elite colleges by Princeton
researchers Thomas J. Epenshade and Chang Y. Chung found that in the absence of racial preferences,
Asians would gain four out of five spots that go to blacks and Hispanics.
    Another 2009 study from Mr. Epenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford, in collaboration with 
Mr. Chung, found that Asian students need a near-perfect SAT score of 1550 to have the same chance 
of being admitted at a top school as whites and blacks with scores of 1410 and 1100, respectively. 
Overall, whites had a three-fold, Hispanics a six-fold, and blacks a more than 15-fold chance of being 
admitted compared to Asian-Americans. 
    Lee Cheng, spokesman for the Asian American Legal Foundation, told me this month that racial 
preferences give Asians a "Chinaman's chance" of admission to the nation's best colleges and 
universities. Indeed, discrimination against Asians is so pervasive that Daniel Golden, author of 
"The Price of Admission," has dubbed them the "new Jews, inheriting the mantle of the most 
disenfranchised group in college admissions."
    Speaking on behalf of her resolution earlier this summer, Ms. Chu saluted George Frisbie Hoar, 
the lone Republican senator to vote against the Chinese Exclusion Act, appealing to his legacy 
"that all people, no matter the color of their skin or their nation of origin, are the equals of every other 
man or woman." If she and her fellow Democrats truly want America to transcend discrimination, they 
need not look 129 years into the past. It is alive and well, harming Americans every single day.
    Mr. Johnson, winner of the 2011 Eric Breindel Collegiate award, is a Robert L. Bartley fellow this 
summer at the Journal. 


7/12/11 National Review: "California Wants to Discriminate Against Asians . . . Again"
by Charles C. Johnson
    Okay, so Governor Jerry Brown didn’t say that explicitly when he joined the growing chorus of activists 
trying to water down or overturn California’s Proposition 209, a ballot effort that invalidated the 
consideration of race in higher education, in the wake of the ruling out of the Sixth Circuit. The Pasadena 
Star-News has the details. 
    The overwhelming losers in this scheme to contort the logic of the Constitution are Asians, as years of 
data has revealed.
    Jennifer Rubin, writing over at The Weekly Standard in 2008, laid bare the findings of a study that looked 
at the abolition of anti-Asian preferences in universities: 
    A 2008 study of changes at the Universities of California, Texas, and Florida after racial preferences 
were eliminated showed:
    At UCB [Berkeley], for example, Asian-American FTIC [first time in college] enrollment jumped from 
1,277 or 37.30 percent in 1995 to 1,632 or 43.57 percent in 2000 following the implementation of 
Proposition 209, and, since that date, the number and percentage of Asian-Americans has increased 
steadily at both UCB and UCLA, reaching 46.59 percent at UCB and 41.53 at UCLA. For UCSD 
[San Diego], the number of Asian-American students continues to increase as both a number and percent 
of the student body, from 1,070 or 35.93 percent in 1995 to 1,133 or 36.33 percent in 2000 and to 1,684 
or 46.88 percent in 2005. At Texas, the number of Asian-American FTIC students went from 886 or 
14.26 percent in 1995 to 1,311 or 17.74 percent in 2000 and has leveled off at 17.33 percent in 2005, 
while in Florida, which has a much smaller Asian-American population, the UF numbers grew from 342 
or 7.50 percent in 1995 to 518 or 7.84 percent in 2000, and to 531 or 8.65 percent in 2005.
    The authors concluded:
    Clearly in an open admissions process where affirmative action does not enter into enrollment 
decisions and where legacy and donor issues are discouraged, Asian-American students compete 
very well. What the data also reveal is that Asian-American students filled the gap as black and Hispanic 
enrollment fell following the elimination of affirmative action in California.
    In 2005, yet another study, described in The Chronicle of Higher Education, looked at who would be 
the big gainers in a world without affirmative action. Here’s what it found. 
    In short, black and Latino enrollment would tank, while white enrollments would hardly be affected. 
The big winners would be Asian applicants, who appear to face “disaffirmative action” right now. They 
would pick up about four out of five spots lost by black and Latino applicants.
. . .
    The research looked at admissions decisions at elite colleges and found that without affirmative action, 
the acceptance rate for African American candidates would be likely to fall by nearly two-thirds, from 
33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants probably would be cut 
in half, from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent.
    While white admit rates would stay steady, Asian students would be big winners under such a system. 
Their admission rate in a race-neutral system would go to 23.4 percent, from 17.6 percent. And their 
share of a class of admitted students would rise to 31.5 percent, from 23.7 percent.
    All else being equal, Asians have, in the words of an Asian activist friend of mine, “a Chinaman’s 
chance” of being admitted at our top schools. If California Republicans were intelligent, they would use 
this data against their racist adversaries in every majority-Asian neighborhood in the state. 
Why don’t they?