Mobilizing Social Science Research to Inform Judicial Decision-Making: SFFA v. Harvard 28 Asian American Law Journal 2021

28 Asian Am. L.J. 4 (2021)
Mobilizing Social Science Research to Inform Judicial Decision-Making: SFFA v. Harvard

handle is hein.journals/aslj28 and id is 49 raw text is: Mobilizing Social Science Research to Inform
Judicial Decision-Making: SFFA v. Harvard
Mike Hoa Nguyent, Douglas H. Lee, Liliana M.
Garces , OiYan A. Poonl & Janelle Wongll
In the fall of 2019, the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts upheld the legality of Harvard's race-conscious admissions
process in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of
Harvard College. In his appeal of the ruling, Students for Fair Admissions
(SFFA) President Edward Blum continued his efforts to eliminate the use of
race as a factor in admissions at both private institutions, such as Harvard,
and public colleges and universities in the United States. In the case, SFFA
intentionally seeks to create divisions within the Asian American community
and among communities of color while seeking to further entrench white
access and entitlement to highly selective institutions.
In the spring of 2020, 678 social scientists and scholars, who
extensively study education issues relating to Asian Americans, college
access, and race in postsecondary institutions and society, filed an amicus
brief with the First Circuit in support of Harvard's holistic admissions
process. This brief is a collective effort to disentangle the dangerous,
cavalier, and misleading claims that SFFA and its allies attempt to advance
in their appeal. These social scientists' efforts provide empirical evidence as
to how Asian Americans, in fact, benefitfrom race-conscious holistic review
in college admissions. The brief submitted to and subsequently cited by the
First Circuit in its opinion, provides background and updated developments
on the legal and social contexts of the case. In this Article, we argue that
future judicial decision-making on this issue (and in particular by the U.S.
Supreme Court) should be informed by the extensive and rigorous body of
empirical research that supports the legality of Harvard's policy. Following
this Article, the brief is reprinted in full as originally filed, and edited only to
comport with the format of this journal.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38RJ48V9N
t- Mike Hoa Nguyen is Assistant Professor at the University of Denver's Morgridge College of
Education and Faculty Affiliate at the Scrivner Institute of Public Policy and the Interdisciplinary
Research Institute for the Study of (In)Equality.
TT Douglas H. Lee is a Ph.D. Student in Higher Education Leadership at Colorado State University.
TT-T Liliana M. Garces is Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy at the University
of Texas at Austin and Faculty Affiliate at the University of Texas School of Law and the Center for
Mexican American Studies.
! OiYan A. Poon is a Program Officer at the Spencer Foundation and an Associate Professor
Affiliate in the School of Education at Colorado State University.
!! Janelle Wong is Professor of American Studies and Asian American Studies at the University
of Maryland at College Park.

4

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

What Is HeinOnline?

Purchase Access

Contact Us

Log In

NEED HELP?

CONTACT US

Get started

Subscribe to our Newsletter