Anti-Asian Discrimination in College Application Processes: RPJ’s Heidi Reavis Comments on Recent Lawsuits

Last week, Heidi Reavis was interviewed by the Los Angeles Times regarding a series of lawsuits filed by 18-year-old Stanley Zhong and his father, Nan Zhong, alleging anti-Asian discrimination by multiple universities during the 2023 undergraduate admissions process.  “Whiz kid” Stanley graduated from high school in 2023 in Palo Alto, California, with a 4.42 grade point average, a near-perfect SAT score, and a myriad of impressive extra-curriculars – including running a start-up that he had founded.  He even had an offer in hand of a Ph.D. level position at Google before even graduating from high school.

Despite all this, Zhong was rejected from 16 of the 18 schools he applied to, including all the Ivys, MIT, Stanford, numerous high-caliber out-of-state universities, and five University of California campuses that Zhong had categorized as “safety schools” based on his credentials.  In the end, he was accepted at UT Austin and the University of Maryland, with respective 31% and 44% admissions rates.  Reavis was interviewed by the Los Angeles Times on the merits of his lawsuits brought against the University of California system and the University of Washington for race discrimination.

Race as a consideration in college admissions has long been a hot button issue – in 2023 the Supreme Court reversed affirmative action policies that use race as a factor when admitting students to colleges and universities.  It is perhaps due to the controversy surrounding race consideration in college admissions that Zhong, after being rejected or ignored by several law firms when seeking legal counsel, resorted to filing his case himself, with the help of AI.  Zhong’s case is thus remarkable in both its underlying legal issues and the pro se process of his law suits brought with the open assistance of AI.

When asked by the Los Angeles Times whether Zhong using AI to draft his law suits would affect a judge’s evaluation of his claims, Reavis said it is unlikely.  Reavis noted that Zhong likely had difficulty finding legal representation due to the daunting and costly nature of the case, and that some attorneys may not agree with the foundation of Zhong’s claims.  Ms. Reavis explains, “[w]hile Stanley Zhong’s underlying claims track his unfortunate admissions experience, the case is a cause.  The Zhongs and their co-Plaintiff SWORD (Students Who Oppose Racial Discrimination) are broadly challenging university admission systems that may have diversity goals with which many attorneys are sympathetic and indeed the beneficiaries[.]”

Read the full Los Angeles Times article here.