At the Harvard affirmative action trial, we are about to hear the less than perfect: who has arrived.

With news of homemade bombs and inflamed rhetoric, the Boston trial of the use of positive discrimination by Harvard has been anything but a racial threat to the president's home base.

Maybe they need cliff notes?

Until now, the trial was a small, picturesque tea party. Quite civil, even though the plaintiffs, the students for Fair Admission (SFFA) were reunited by a lawyer of the right, anti-affirmative action, Ed Blum, and are represented by lawyers, all of whom would have was committed for the most conservative Supreme Court Judge, Clarence Thomas. Although he was a beneficiary, Thomas does not like positive action.

For its part, Harvard was represented by Bill Lee, American lawyer of Asian origin and Harvard graduate (promotion of 1972). He knows what it's like to be the only Asian in the room. He spent most of his time at the trial interviewing Harvard admissions dean William Fitzsimmons, while Harvard defended his use of the breed. Fitzsimmons, who is White, is really the face of the lawsuit, until now. He is the son of an owner of a gas station outside Boston, also a Harvard graduate (class of 1966).

A lot of symbolism here.

What most people do not understand is how the majority of Americans of Asian descent – 58% – view positive action as a good thing.

And when asked if they favored or opposed affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities to have better access to HIV / AIDS. higher education, 66% of all Americans of Asian descent were in favor.

Even Chinese voters were in favor at 64%.

And it is most plaintiffs who are suing Harvard for race-based confessions.

So, what is it about in the Harvard case?

This is really the last position of the crowd of anti-affirmative / pro-colorblind professionals, who once thought that something went hand in hand with California Proposition 209. By referendum, positive action was banned and the group sought to nationalize the idea. But there are bumps along the way.

After failing in the Fisher v. Texas case, the professional anti-affirmative fighter, Blum, turned to the use of Asians as victims, formed the group Students for Fair Admissions and the issue became very controversial again. But especially because since 209 in the 90s, the demographics have changed so much that it is the whites who worry more about their share down the cake. The plaintiffs are Asians in the Harvard case, but the true beneficiaries of the ban on the use of the breed in wins will be whites.

Until now in the first weeks of the trial, it's all about statistics and numbers.

A set of facts from the first week of the trial showed how much Harvard appreciated rural students and sent letters of recruitment to the markers of the national merit test.

For Asians to receive the same letter, they had to get a better score.

Discrimination?

It looks worse than that. If anyone really wanted to apply to Harvard, he could still do it without this letter of recruitment. And remember, Harvard looks at all the students. The race is just a small part.

Whatever statistics you want to display, the bottom line is that the Harvard freshman class has been 16 to 23% in recent years. In other words, Americans of Asian descent are well represented.

But what about the chart that shows that if all Americans of Asian descent with grades and high marks were admitted, would Harvard be Asian at over 40%? But after the application of all factors, Asia admits to have dropped to 18%.

Intentional discrimination? Quota?

Hard to prove. This just shows how Harvard uses race in lawful admissions. And despite the 40% of victories won, Asians are still well represented.

It would be good to hear Chinese students who feel discriminated against.

But this is not likely to happen.

SFFA is pleased to base its record on manipulated statistics and to match expert witnesses. Both sides have an economist with a model of Harvard admissions to reinforce their side. That's why, at trial, the victory can come from a testimony from one of Harvard's Asian American students.

Those who entered but did not get the perfect scores or the best grades. The deserving beneficiaries of the "tip".

Sally Chen is one of them. She is a daughter of Chinese immigrants. His retired cook father; his mother is a housewife. A child of the working class, she went to a very competitive high school in San Francisco where children with high marks and grades were rejected by Harvard.

Why did she come in?

"I think there are a lot of people who might succeed at Harvard, it's such a selective process, I would not say that I'm necessarily unique," Chen said.

She added, "I think there is a luck factor, and everything that needs to be balanced in the admission process, including geographic diversity."

But what pushed her to the top of the other candidates with better grades?

Chen was too modest. She then explained how her reviewer said she showed "humility and humor" and how it allowed her to be considered a person in her own right.

Last week, I asked her what she would do if she did not come home.

"I would have attended another university like UC Berkeley, where I could have been so happy," she said.

Now, this is an attitude that rejected students should adopt for fair admissions. But when Harvard said no, they found Blum, or Blum found them. Call it a positive action ambulance pursuit.

After two weeks of litigation, it is clear that we are only at the beginning of another long process that could end up in the Supreme Court. Just do not accept the line that American groups of Asian origin say that this case is about your children and future American children of Asian descent who might be subject to discrimination. This is what Ed Blum wants you to think when he uses Asians as white proxies in his vital mission to end positive action.

That's why, in the Harvard trial, I encourage Sally Chen.

Emil Guillermo is a journalist and commentator. You can follow him on Twitter @emilamok