Admissions Granted

Hao Wu and Miao Wang's sharp, diligently balanced documentary explores a landmark Supreme Court case in which Asian Americans sued Harvard University over its affirmative action admissions policy. The plaintiffs, who accuse the school of discriminating against Asians in favor of other minorities, ally themselves with Edward Blum, a conservative litigant who has devoted much of his life to ending affirmative action and any classifications and preferences based on race and ethnicity. The 90-minute movie covers a lot of ground and a lot of time, introducing us to several eloquent activists on both sides.

The filmmaker's access and ability to get candid and detailed interviews from so many participants is key to the success of Admissions Granted. They craft this political hot-button issue doc in a style that's becoming all too rare in modern non-fiction filmmaking—presenting a well-rounded picture of the events and personalities involved and allowing viewers to draw their own conclusions. What a concept! In addition to several interviews with Blumb, who is very comfortable articulating his well-thought-out talking points for journalists and interviewers, we hear from persuasive academics who argue the importance of racial diversity in educational settings and the potential problems with jettisoning policies of diversity, equity, and inclusion in favor of a supposed "merit-based" admissions system.

We also hear from several of the plaintiffs in the case, college-age kids who stepped up to testify in the highest court in the land. We meet these folks at the film's beginning, and they present as likable, sympathetic individuals. But the "evidence" presented by one of the featured young men for the alleged discrimination he experienced is that the majority of disappointed high schoolers he saw live-streaming themselves opening their admissions letters and seeing they did not get in were mostly Asian. Whether or not he considered the myriad reasons for this phenomenon other than systemic racism is not covered. Nor, perhaps, should it be. As this film and the eloquent talking heads it spotlights do an excellent job of describing the complexities and nuances of this issue without the filmmakers needing to underline anything.

The probability that these folks are being used as pawns by a rich and powerful man trying to end a long-standing policy that has helped countless Black and Hispanic students, including several of the advocates and policymakers interviewed, is well covered, as is the perfectly reasoned defense of aligning oneself with political adversaries who have a common cause. Still, it will be difficult for people of older generations not to look at this group of privileged young people fighting against this specific discrimination and see it as demonstrative of Gen Z's lack of perspective and historical context. Here are a bunch of smart, hardworking young people who feel that because they are smart and hard-working, they deserve to be Harvard students, influencers, movie stars, whatever, and they get very bent out of shape when it turns out that not everyone gets those things. Nothing sums up the contrast in how different generations perceive oppression and discrimination more than the fact that one of the main plaintiffs in the trial ends up feeling that he had a great college experience despite not getting into his first choice, Harvard, where he firmly believes he deserved to go. Seeing him and his buddies hanging out in their Berkley dorm, reflecting on how great their lives have been despite Harvard's "discriminatory policies," speaks volumes about the difference between perceived injustice and actual oppression.

The issue of legacy and wealth considerations in college admissions is also touched on in several ways. Blume concedes that he believes those considerations should not factor into the admissions process any more than skin color should. He claims that once affirmative action falls, these other preferential categories will follow suit. Audiences can decide for themselves if they believe him (or if they believe that he actually believes this to be the case). Personally, I think it's insane not to have tied the end of affirmative action to an end to legacy admissions, but that's not the world we live in. To my eyes, Admissions Granted is illustrative of how the ultra-powerful in our society harness the energy of the less powerful to take opportunities for advancement away from those who have little power to begin with. Still, this is America, and people have the right to fight for their righteous causes even when the outcome could be detrimental, not only to a majority of the country but ultimately, and quite possibly, to the causes themselves.