SFFA v. Harvard: How Affirmative Action Myths Mask White Bonus

SFFA v. Harvard: How Affirmative Action Myths Mask White Bonus Jonathan P. Feingold* In the ongoing litigation of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, Harvard faces allegations that its once-heralded admissions process discriminates against Asian Americans. Public discourse has revealed a dominant narrative: affirmative action is viewed as the presumptive cause of Harvard’s alleged “Asian penalty.” Yet this narrative misrepresents the plaintiff’s own theory of discrimination. Rather than implicating affirmative action, the underlying allegations portray the phenomenon of “negative action”—that is, an admissions regime in which White applicants take the seats of their more qualified Asian-American counterparts. Nonetheless, we are witnessing a broad failure to see this case for what it is. This misperception invites an unnecessary and misplaced referendum on race-conscious admissions at Harvard and beyond. Introduction ............................................................................................ 708 I. The Prevailing Narrative: It’s All Affirmative Action ........................ 711 A. The Standard Affirmative Action Myth: Black v. White..... 713 B. Changing the Affirmative Action Frame: Black v. Asian.... 716 II. What Affirmative Action Myths Mask: Negative Action .................. 719 A. Harvard’s Admissions Process ............................................ 720 B. Who Benefits from the Asian Penalty: White Applicants ... 721 1. The Personal Rating ....................................................... 722 2. The Overall Score .......................................................... 723 3. Selection ........................................................................ 723 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38Z02Z882 Copyright © 2019 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications. * Research Fellow, BruinX | Special Assistant to the Vice Chancellor, UCLA Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. Jonathan Feingold holds a B.A. from Vassar College and a J.D. from UCLA School of Law. . . . ©. Many thanks for insightful comments and feedback from Jerry Kang, Devon Carbado, Evelyn Carter, Brandie Kirkpatrick, David Simson, and the participants at the 2018 Equality Law Scholars’ Forum. I also extend my thanks to the editors of the California Law Review for their invaluable edits and support of this piece. 707 708 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 107:707 C. What Causes the Asian Penalty: Facially Neutral Conduct . 725 III. A Re-Defined Remedy...................................................................... 728 A. SFFA’s Recommendation: Eliminate Affirmative Action ... 728 B. A Responsive Remedy: Target Negative Action ................. 731 1. More, not Less, Race-Consciousness............................. 731 2. Targeted Racial Cloaking .............................................. 732 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 734 Appendix A: From Asian Penalty to White Bonus ................................. 734 INTRODUCTION On November 2, 2018, the California Law Review and the Henderson Center for Social Justice hosted a symposium titled “20 Years of 209: the Past, Present, and Future of Affirmative Action in Public Universities.” As its name suggests, the symposium invited participants to reflect on Proposition 209, a 1996 ballot initiative that prompted the elimination of race-conscious admissions policies across California’s public colleges and universities.1 That same day, on the other side of the country, attorneys made closing arguments in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, a lawsuit that targets Harvard’s race-conscious admissions process.2 Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”),3 the named plaintiff, claims that Harvard unlawfully discriminates against Asian-American applicants and seeks to enjoin Harvard from considering—or even knowing—the race of its applicants.4 1. Proposition 209 was passed in November 1996 and took effect in August 1997. See Coal. for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Its text, now incorporated in the California Constitution, provides: “The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.” CAL. CONST. art. I, § 31(a). 2. See The Crimson News Staff, Here’s What Happened in The Harvard Admissions Trial Today, HARVARD CRIMSON (Oct. 16, 2018), https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/16/whathappened-today [https://perma.cc/84R3-NLMT]. Because Harvard is a private entity that receives federal assistance, SFFA’s allegations arise under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. Nonetheless, constitutional standards apply to claims arising under the Title VI statute. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 287 (1978) (“In view of the clear legislative intent, Title VI must be held to proscribe only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Fifth Amendment.”); Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280 (2001). 3. SFFA was founded by Edward Blum, a White anti-affirmative activist who has spearheaded multiple lawsuits challenging race-conscious admissions and voting rights protections across the country. See Anemona Hartocollis, He Took on the Voting Rights Act and Won. Now He’s Taking on Harvard, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 19, 2017), https://nyti.ms/2jFMkOb [https://perma.cc/4CVT-L83J]; see also STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, About, https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/about [https://perma.cc/9JRD-RZC6]. 4. See Complaint at 119, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., No. 14-14176 (D. Mass. Nov. 14, 2014) [hereinafter “Complaint”], http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SFFA-v.Harvard-Complaint.pdf [https://perma.cc/4GG6-YPMF] (seeking a “permanent injunction prohibiting Harvard from using race as a factor in future undergraduate admissions decisions . . . permanent injunction requiring Harvard to conduct all admissions in a manner that does not permit those engaged 2019] SFFA V. HARVARD: 709 The serendipity of this timing was difficult to ignore. In Berkeley, attendees described—often through piercing personal testimony—Proposition 209’s devastating effects on higher education in California.5 In Boston, SFFA sought a ruling that has the potential to propagate a Proposition 209-like regime across the entire country.6 The Harvard litigation has garnered national attention and spurred fierce debate.7 This is not surprising. SFFA’s open and unapologetic agenda is to dismantle race-conscious admissions at Harvard and beyond.8 Given the recent appointment (...truncated)