Bay Area teen rejected by 16 colleges, hired by Google files racial discrimination lawsuit
After being rejected by 16 colleges, Bay Area teen Stanley Zhong was hired for a PhD-level position at Google. Now, he and his father are suing the University of California for racial discrimination.
The lawsuit filed by 19-year-old Stanley Zhong and his father against the University of California has ignited passionate discussions about racial discrimination, meritocracy, and the broader implications of college admissions. Zhong, a Gunn High School graduate with a stellar 4.42 GPA and a near-perfect SAT score of 1590, was rejected by 16 top universities, including UC Berkeley, UCLA, Stanford, and MIT. Despite these rejections, he secured a highly coveted position as a software engineer at Google. His lawsuit alleges that the UC system systematically discriminates against Asian-American applicants, violating the principles set by California's Proposition 209 and the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action in 2023.
The lawsuit claims that UC schools, despite being legally prohibited from considering race in admissions, have found covert ways to disadvantage Asian applicants. The Zhong family has cited statistical evidence suggesting that the university system actively suppresses Asian enrollment despite the population's continued growth. They also argue that UC faculty hiring practices reveal illegal racial considerations, adding another layer to their allegations. More broadly, they claim that holistic admissions criteria, such as personality scores and extracurricular preferences, disproportionately hurt Asian and white applicants.
The case has sparked intense online debate, with many supporting Zhong’s claims of discrimination while others question whether his rejections were truly unfair. Those who support the lawsuit argue that the rejection of a high-achieving student like Zhong is part of a systemic bias against Asian students in college admissions. Some cite previous lawsuits, such as the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case, where evidence showed that Asian applicants were penalized on personality ratings despite performing equally well in interviews. There is also frustration over UC's decision to eliminate SAT and ACT scores from the admissions process, making academic merit harder to measure objectively. Many believe that holistic review allows universities to discriminate without clear accountability, as non-academic factors can be used to justify rejections.
However, not everyone agrees that Zhong’s case is an example of discrimination. Some argue that he attended a highly competitive high school, Gunn High School in Palo Alto, where many students have similarly high GPAs and achievements. Others suspect that his extracurricular activities or essays may not have stood out enough in comparison to his peers. A few people have pointed out that his father, a Google engineering manager, may have played a role in his startup success and even his hiring at Google. Some critics also worry that lawsuits like this could be leveraged by conservative legal activists to dismantle diversity and inclusion programs in higher education.
This lawsuit comes at a time when universities are under scrutiny for their admissions policies following the end of affirmative action. The case could have significant consequences for how public universities, particularly in California, handle race in admissions and hiring. Some fear that further legal challenges could dismantle holistic admissions altogether, making admissions more formulaic and test-score-dependent.
The case raises difficult questions. Should admissions be strictly meritocratic, favoring academic and test-based metrics, or should schools consider personal backgrounds and life experiences? Is it possible to maintain diversity in top universities without racial preferences? Zhong’s story has captured national attention because it highlights the unpredictability and competitiveness of modern college admissions. Whether or not the lawsuit succeeds, it has already reignited discussions about fairness, racial biases, and the role of elite institutions in shaping the next generation of leaders.
What are your thoughts? Do you believe UC schools discriminated against Zhong, or is this simply a case of a hyper-competitive admissions landscape?