Concerns Over Discrimination in New York City’s School Admissions

Yi Fan Chen’s son had the academic qualifications to enroll in New York City’s renowned Stuyvesant High School.

The issue? He didn’t fit the racial criteria.

Chen’s son is among the students affected by the city’s Discovery Program, which was designed to give disadvantaged students a pathway into specialized high schools even if they didn’t meet the standard exam requirements.

However, in 2018, former Mayor Bill de Blasio significantly broadened the program’s reach.

He required these competitive schools to reserve 20% of their seats for Discovery students, aiming to admit more Black and Hispanic students, often at the cost of Asian applicants.

According to New York’s Hecht-Calandra Law, admissions to these prestigious institutions must be based solely on scores from standardized entrance exams.

Chen’s son barely missed the cutoff for Stuyvesant, and it’s likely he would have been admitted if not for the increased enrollment through Discovery.

Unfortunately, the city’s strategy to limit Asian admissions appears to have worked as intended.

Recently, the Pacific Law Foundation filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Chen family, aiming to challenge the perceived racial discrimination inherent in the Discovery program.

My organization, the Chinese American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York, fully supports this action.

The lawsuit is part of a broader fight against what many consider anti-Asian bias in education.

There’s another lawsuit in play, initiated by an Asian family against the city regarding the same discriminatory policies, which has been ongoing for seven years.

This initial lawsuit, filed in 2018, had to be updated multiple times as mayors changed.

It’s almost absurd how many mayors’ names need to be swapped in this particular case.

The CACAGNY lawsuit remains active in federal court in the Southern District of New York.

In comparison, significant cases like SFFA v. Harvard University regarding affirmative action in college admissions were resolved much quicker—within five years—in Boston.

Even the landmark Brown v. Board of Education, which addressed school segregation, was decided in just five months. The U.S. managed to defeat World War II in four years.

Yet, the CACAGNY case seems to languish.

Interestingly, Yi Fan Chen, currently pursuing legal action over this issue, was an original plaintiff in the earlier lawsuit.

At that time, she was removed from the case because her son was deemed “too young” to contest the discrimination in high school admissions.

Now that her son is older, he’s facing the same discriminatory practices that she tried to challenge nearly eight years ago.

It’s somewhat ironic; she was, in a way, penalized for her foresight.

So now, Chen returns to the district court, underscoring the reality that delayed justice can feel like denied justice.

Each year, countless Asian American students, like Chen’s son, have faced this adversity for the past seven years.

The city, along with well-funded organizations like the NAACP, has continually delayed proceedings.

They appear to understand that such tactics can wear down grassroots groups like CACAGNY.

Member attrition is a real concern; students grow older, families relocate, and organizations can become inactive.

This strategy seems to be working: of the original six plaintiffs from 2018, CACAGNY is now the only active participant.

It seems the city may be biding its time, especially with the Supreme Court case on the horizon.

After all, the decision in SFFA v. Harvard University emphasized that the only path to eliminate racial discrimination is to cease all forms of racial discrimination, aligning with CACAGNY’s stance.

This is not how justice should function.

Chen’s son deserves a fair opportunity within the legal framework.

Regarding the CACAGNY case, the district court’s slow and unilateral actions must come to an end.

These tactics adversely affect hundreds of students annually and undermine the very essence of justice.