From Zhong v. Univ. of Wash. Bd. of Regents, a ruling issued yesterday by Judge James Robart of the Western District of Washington:
This civil rights suit arises from the University’s decision to reject Stanley’s bid to enroll in its undergraduate computer science program for Fall 2023. The plaintiffs argue that “Defendants have engaged in systemic bias against Asian American applicants” by demanding higher levels of academic achievement and extracurricular involvement than applicants from other racial groups.” …
The plaintiffs describe Stanley as a California resident and a highly capable candidate for undergraduate study. They contend he was among the top students at his high school, achieved strong scores on standardized admissions tests, and “took on leadership roles across a range of academic and volunteer activities.” Stanley is a “self-taught programmer” who earned “top honors in some of the world’s most competitive coding contests[.]” ([Complaint] ¶¶ 40-41 (citing the competitions); see also id. ¶¶ 43-44 (detailing notable coding initiatives).) When Stanley was 13, Google offered him a full-time software engineering interview before discovering he was ineligible for employment due to his age. Shortly before his 18th birthday, Stanley reapplied for a software engineering position at Google. At the time the plaintiffs filed suit, Stanley was employed by Google as a software engineer. (See id. ¶ 50 (describing the outcome of his January 2025 full-year performance review).) …
Stanley asserts that even if the University’s admissions criteria and processes appear facially race-neutral, the existence of target goals aimed at increasing the proportions of certain underrepresented minority groups suggests that the University is nonetheless weighing applicants’ race. Whether racial bias operates beneath the surface of the admissions decisions is a factual question that should not be resolved on a motion to dismiss.
The court finds that Stanley has plausibly alleged racial discrimination within the University’s admissions process…. Here, the DEIA Plan of the School of Computer Science & Engineering outlines an objective to “[m]easure the percentage of domestic Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/ Alaska Native, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander undergraduates and, by year 5, assess whether the percentage reaches at least 15% (the UW-Seattle average).” In the same vein, the Departmental Broadening Participation in Computing (BPC) Plan states that one of its six “‘stretch goals’ for the next five years” is to “[i]ncrease the share of domestic BHN [Black, Hispanic, Native] undergraduates to match the UW-Seattle average[.]”
Taken together, these documents reasonably support Stanley’s claims. Viewed in the light most favorable to him, including the complaint and the accompanying materials and all reasonable inferences, the court determines that he has sufficiently alleged that race is being considered as a factor in the University’s admissions decisions in pursuit of racial balancing.
This is merely a ruling that denies a motion to dismiss. The court notes that it has found only that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged discrimination, not that they have proven it. With the dismissal request denied, the plaintiffs may engage in discovery to uncover additional information relevant to their claims, and the court will evaluate any such information at the summary-judgment stage (and possibly at trial).
