Washington, D.C. "Asian Americans are an extremely diverse population with more than 50 ethnic groups, 100 languages, and a broad range of immigration, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds," said Margaret Fung, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund executive director. "Instead of treating Asian Americans as a monolithic group, the individualized race-conscious admissions process at Harvard helps to create a more diverse student body that benefits all students, including Asian Americans."

The plaintiff organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) was created by Edward Blum, who has a long history of opposing affirmative action and restricting voting rights. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his claims in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and reaffirmed that race may be considered as one of several factors in the college admissions process. Blum has continued his crusade against affirmative action by recruiting Asian American students to assert that Harvard discriminated against them.

In their brief, AALDEF and other Amici contend that by improperly grouping the diverse pool of Asian American applicants into a single "Asian" category, SFFA actually perpetuates the "model minority" myth and fails to disclose that its requested remedy--the elimination of race-conscious admissions--would mostly benefit white applicants, not Asian Americans. The Amici reiterated their opposition to caps, quotas, or any negative action against Asian Americans but asserted that SFFA improperly conflates negative action with a race-conscious admissions policy that recognizes the importance of diversity.

Ken Kimerling, AALDEF legal director and one of the attorneys for Amici, said: "This case is hotly contested by witnesses and experts on both sides. However, SFFA has not submitted facts to support a finding of intentional discrimination against Asian Americans." He noted that SFFA has not presented any supporting statements by the 40 or more persons involved each year to review and analyze the applications for admission. Kimerling said: "If there were a policy, written or unstated, to discriminate against Asian Americans, one or more of the 40 persons would have spoken up about it in the past decade. Clearly, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment must be denied.”

Foley Hoag LLP is pro bono co-counsel representing the Amici. You can download the amicus brief here.

In addition to AALDEF, 34 Asian American groups and higher education faculty are Co-Amici:
18 Million Rising, Asian American Federation, Asian American Psychological Association, Asian Americans United, Asian Law Alliance, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Asian Pacific American Network, Asian Pacific American Women Lawyers Alliance, Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic Empowerment, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Chinese Progressive Association, Coalition for Asian American Children & Families, GAPIMNY, Japanese American Citizens League, Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics, National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development, National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center.

Individuals (Institutional affiliations provided for identification purposes only)
Vichet Chhuon - Uniersity of Minnesota-Twin Cities
Gabriel J. Chin - University of California, David School of Law
Tarry Hum, MCP, PhD - Queens College CUNY
Anil Kalhan  - Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law
Nancy Leong - University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Shirley Lung - City University of New York School of Law
Mari J. Matsuda - William S. Richardson School of Law University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Kevin Nadal, PhD - City University of New York
Philip Tajitsu Nash - University of Maryland at College Park
Cathy J. Schlund-Vials - University of Connecticut
Sona Shah -  University of Texas at Austin
John Kuo Wei Tchen - Rutgers University - Newark
Margaret Y.K. Woo - Northeastern University School of Law
K. Wayne Yang - University of California, San Diego

The Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA), AFL-CIO condemns the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME, a ruling that will destroy workers’ ability to have a seat at the table to negotiate fair wages and benefits.

APALA National President Monica Thammarath of the National Education Association stated: “When working people stand together, we have more power. The entire case was a political maneuver to attack our freedoms and rig our economy in favor of the corporate interests. Instead of protecting working people’s ability to negotiate on the job, especially with an administration that has already betrayed workers in favor of corporate greed, this ruling will rollback progress that helped level the playing field for working families, including Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) workers and families.”

APALA Executive Director, Alvina Yeh, added: “This is a huge blow to the labor movement. Workers deserve to have the freedom to stand together in their unions and have a voice on the job. Today, the same dark web of corporations and wealthy elite that has attacked the LGBTQ community, women, and immigrants has won again and trampled on our rights as well as the voices of working people. We will not back down on the fight for our rights to organize and collectively bargain nor will we stop building power for our immigrant families and communities.”

Johanna Puno Hester, APALA 2nd Vice President and International Vice President of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), concluded: “The list of benefits that unions provide and have provided is long. From raising wages to ensuring workers health insurance and other benefits, unions continue to improve the working place for workers everywhere. Despite today’s decision, we will continue to organize and fight back against this decision, and we demand that our elected officials now recommit to working people today by making it easier to join together in unions.”
​
###

In response to the Supreme Court's recent rulings, the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA), AFL-CIO issued the following statements:

APALA National President Monica Thammarath of the National Education Association commented on Trump v. Hawai’i: "We are outraged and refuse to allow history to repeat itself. This ruling is a stain on the wrong side of history during Trump's white supremacist, right wing era. As an Asian American and Pacific Islander community, we understand the pain of xenophobia – from the heightened surveillance of Muslim- or perceived-to-be-Muslim communities after 9/11 to the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II. Our fight for a world free from discrimination and hate has just become that much more difficult, and we join together with thousands across the country to denounce this ruling that will have disastrous consequences on our communities and our nation's values and moral fabric. We will not be banned."
​
APALA Executive Director Alvina Yeh commented on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al.: "The SCOTUS ruling that validated Ohio's 'use it or lose it' practice to purge voter rolls is deeply disappointing and problematic. This aggressive practice is especially harmful for communities of color and workers who might face a variety of obstacles to voting, from language barriers to transportation issues to inflexible work schedules. In other words, there are many reasons contributing to low voter turnout, but that should not mean that voters should be removed from the rolls. States should be making it easier to vote, not creating more barriers to it. We are outraged that such blatant voter suppression continues to happen and remain resolute to registering and turning out the vote for our communities."

###