|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Gunn High School graduate Stanley Zhong was rejected from 16 prestigious universities in 2023, despite having a 1590 SAT score and a 4.42 GPA. Now, he and his father are suing the University of California, the University of Washington, the University of Michigan and Cornell University for racial discrimination.
Aside from his high grades, SAT test scores and volunteer awards, he had also performed so well in Google, MIT, Facebook and Carnegie Melon coding competitions, among others, that Google sent Stanley a job interview request when he was only 13 years old.
Before he turned 18, he was also evaluated by multiple Google engineers, who offered him an “L4 position,” which often requires a doctoral degree, according to his lawsuit against the University of California.
With numerous educational and extracurricular accolades in hand, Stanley had previously told this publication that he didn’t know why he was rejected. But, what he did know was that he wanted to fight for positive change, like more transparency regarding college admissions.
“I’m not here to harp on affirmative action,” he said in 2023.
He said at the time that he wanted to help establish more direct modes of contact between applicants and school admission staff. But after years of pushing for more communication with the public, Stanley and his father Nan Zhong, realized they wouldn’t receive any themselves.
“We attempted to engage with university officials, state lawmakers, Governor Newsom, and the federal Department of Education, but after being stonewalled or ignored for well over a year, litigation became our only remaining option,” Nan Zhong wrote in an email to this publication.
While Stanley and Nan weren’t legal experts and struggled to find lawyers, two things made the lawsuits possible – artificial intelligence and the fact that Stanley is not attending college now, which may allow him to act more freely, Nan Zhong said. They filed the suit against University of California in the United States District Court in February before filing suits against other universities in different district courts.
Stanley, who is still a Google employee, will not be speaking publicly about the litigation as he and his father fear ostracization, Nan Zhong said.
The lawsuits claim that “Stanley’s experience is emblematic of a broader pattern of racial discrimination against highly qualified Asian-American applicants,” and that the U.S. Department of Education facilitates this conduct, violating the 14th amendment.
“Stanley was denied the opportunity to compete for admission to UC on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of race or ethnicity due to UC’s discriminatory admissions policies and practices,” according to their lawsuit against the University of California.
While the University of California does not use “specified racial targets,” the lawsuit contends that it has tried to increase enrollment for specific groups like Berkeley’s past efforts to serve more Hispanic students.
Asian student admission decreased from 18.9% in 2014 to 15.8% in 2023, according to the lawsuit – meanwhile, other racial groups continue to see high admission rates despite having lower average SAT scores.
“Stanley is ready, able and intends to apply to UC when it ceases its intentional discrimination against Asian-Americans,” the lawsuit states.
In the lawsuits, Stanley and Nan demand an apology from the universities to Asian-American applicants, the creation of an independent oversight board for UC applicants and annual discrimination training for admissions officers.
In California, consideration of race in college admissions is prohibited under Proposition 209, which voters approved in 1996. In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down affirmative action nationwide, ruling that colleges can no longer consider race among the factors that guide admissions, a move that University of California President Michael E. Drake called disappointing.
“Student diversity remains a top priority for the University of California — one that we will continue to pursue with every tool available to us,” Drake said in the statement at that time, adding that the universities use a “comprehensive review process” that considers various factors like academic accomplishments in light of a student’s life experiences or recent marked improvements in academic performance.
Since the practice was banned, the University of California adjusted its admissions policies to comply with the law, while expanding access for all qualified students, a spokesperson for the university system wrote in a message to this publication.
“The University of California intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit,” the message states. “We believe this to be a meritless suit that seeks to distract us from our mission to provide California students with a world-class education.”
The University of Washington also stands behind its admissions process, wrote its spokesperson Victor Balta in a message to this publication.
“We have long recognized that our capacity is limited and we are not able to admit some very talented and capable applicants,” wrote Balta, who declined to comment further due to the ongoing litigation.
The University of Michigan and Cornell University did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
According to the university’s data, the percentage of University of California undergraduates that are Asian dropped from 38% in 2009 to 32.2% in 2022, while the percentage of white graduates fell from 36% to 22.2% over that period. Meanwhile, the percentage of Hispanic undergraduates went up from 14% to 22.5% over that period and the percentage of Black undergraduates went from 3% to 4.5%.
So far, Nan said, they are in contact with multiple university whistleblowers who wish to speak about discrimination in admissions, but many have backed off due to fear of retaliation.
When the pair decided to take legal action, they didn’t anticipate the responses they received – with the universities assigning popular lawyers to the cases, like Robert McKenna, a former state attorney general, who will be representing the University of Washington.
“As pro se litigants with no legal background, our battle against well-resourced universities and their top legal teams is undeniably a David vs. Goliath fight,” Nan wrote to this publication in a message. “AI may just be the sling we need.”
While this is just the beginning of the fight that the father and son are waging against the universities, the pair hopes their case will not only win in the court of law but in the “court of public opinion,” as well, Nan wrote.
“We demand accountability,” he said. “It goes back to transparency we’ve been talking about from day one. The UC, right now, is operating admissions in a black box.”
Such entitlement. I certainly hope they lose those trials so that it doesn’t set a precedent.
Interesting. All 16 of the universities rejected him. Is there maybe a chance that it’s him and not them?
…and they couldn’t get pro bono representation from the firm that brought the Students For Fair Admissions case.
Mr. Zhong needs to consider that perhaps the institutions felt that since he was already evaluated to fit a position to Google typically reserved for someone at a “doctoral level”, maybe he did not NEED education at the undergraduate level at their institution. The admittance was better served for someone who actually had something to gain from sitting in their lecture halls.
Perhaps it’s also because he sounds insufferable.
“Ostracization” isn’t a word. It’s “ostracism.”