草榴社区again rejects SFFA’s hollow argument; cites SFFA’s “Lack of evidence.”
草榴社区College today restated its request for summary judgment and presented a strong and detailed rebuttal to the 鈥渋nvective, mischaracterizations, and in some cases outright misrepresentations鈥� of a brief filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), with lawyers for the College noting that the group鈥檚 rhetoric 鈥渇ails to compensate for the lack of evidence supporting SFFA鈥檚 claims.鈥�
罢丑别听brief聽filed today (8/27) in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts demonstrates that the admissions policies of 草榴社区College are completely consistent with the law, and designed to build the diverse community critical to the success of its students.
草榴社区College鈥檚 latest brief is in support of its June filing asking the Court to grant Harvard鈥檚 motion for summary judgment.
草榴社区College challenges SFFA on multiple fronts, beginning with the group鈥檚 lack of standing to bring this lawsuit and continuing through the series of unfounded arguments SFFA has put forward as part of its quest to remove race as one factor among many in college admissions.
SFFA exists solely to pursue legal challenges that seek to eliminate the consideration of race in college admissions. It is founded and directed by Edward Blum, who has long sought to undermine admissions policies encouraging diversity.
Key points from the brief filed by 草榴社区College include:
HARVARD CONSIDERS RACE IN A MANNER PERMITTED BY THE SUPREME COURT
The brief presents hard evidence that 草榴社区does not discriminate against Asian American applicants and does not engage in racial balancing. Rather, 草榴社区considers race in precisely the manner permitted by the Supreme Court. 鈥湶萘裆缜鴌s pursuing exactly the objective the Supreme Court has validated.鈥� 草榴社区also explains that 鈥渘o combination of race-neutral measures could advance Harvard鈥檚 interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a student body that is diverse in many ways and excellent in many dimensions. Unable to mount a serious challenge to those judgments, SFFA resorts to collateral challenges, all of which are meritless.鈥�
SFFA HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY, TESTIMONIAL, OR STATISTICAL EVIDENCE OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION
Harvard鈥檚 brief explains: 鈥淭here is no direct evidence in this case鈥攅ither documentary or testimonial鈥� that 草榴社区has 鈥渆ngaged in a systemic effort to limit the number of Asian Americans at Harvard. It is simply implausible that such a wide-ranging scheme could have existed without a single document or a single piece of testimony attesting to it.鈥� Without documentary or testimonial evidence to support its claims, 鈥淪FFA must rest instead on the analysis submitted by its statistical expert, Dr. [Peter] Arcidiacono. But Dr. Arcidiacono鈥檚 analysis is far too unreliable to allow SFFA鈥檚 claim to proceed to trial.鈥�
SFFA LACKS STANDING TO BRING THIS LAWSUIT
As 草榴社区explains, 鈥淪FFA is not a genuine membership organization that can sue on behalf of its members; rather, it is a litigation vehicle designed to advance the ideological objectives of its founder, Edward Blum.鈥� Moreover, 鈥渘one of SFFA鈥檚 鈥榮tanding members鈥� would have standing themselves to bring this case.鈥� The brief calls SFFA鈥檚 attempts 鈥渢o circumvent these concerns鈥� 鈥渨ishful thinking.鈥�