Produced and Directed by: Hao Wu (@beijingloafer), Miao Wang
Run Time: 90 Minutes
Rating: 0 Stars, The Worst of 17 Films Gus Saw @ SIFF2024
While the US Supreme Court was dismantling so-called “affirmative action” programs in higher education during the summer of 2023, Gus T. invited Dr. Jennifer L. Pierce to discuss her book: Racing For Innocence: Whiteness, Gender, and The Backlash Against Affirmative Action (2012). A White Woman/Suspected Racist and expert on both “affirmative action” and the System of White Supremacy, Dr. Pierce’s text exposes how dialog on this contested program reliably and deliberately misrepresents “black” people (especially “black” males) as “unqualified,” lazy applicants seeking unearned handouts at the expense of hardworking, scholarly Whites. Racing for Innocence details how decades of cinema and Supreme Court decisions suggest that because of “affirmative action,” “whites are disadvantaged vis-à-vis black Americans.”
The latest film in this White Supremacist tradition is the MSNBC documentary Admissions Granted (2024). Slated for mainstream release later this month, California’s VC Film Fest told moviegoers that “Admissions Granted takes an honest and thoughtful look at the complexity of the affirmative action debate.”
There’s little honest about Admissions Granted.
The documentary showcases a number of “asian” students with gaudy résumés and sincere frustrations about being rejected from the ivy palace that is Harvard. As they continued to suggest that there were specific efforts to exclude or hinder applicants classified as “asian,” I began to wonder what percentage of Harvard’s students are classified as “asian.” You’ll have finished your popcorn and watched nearly the entire film before you’re told (without graphics or fanfare) that 28% of the Cambridge scholars are “asian.”
The big lie is at the center of this film. This falsehood is so redundant, I expect it, and now, respond aggressively when any person mutters “affirmative action” to grouse about people classified as “black.” Dr. Pierce, a White Woman, stresses that the greatest beneficiaries of “affirmative action” are people like her. White chicks. This is not confidential or new information. Time magazine wrote about this in 2013. The Admitted White Supremacist known as Tim Wise penned an essay last century detailing White Women’s rejection of “affirmative action” in spite of the fact that they’re the primary beneficiaries of the program.
Filmmakers Hao Wu and Miao Wang know this. Audiences get more deceptive stalling and have nearly exited theaters before they’re told that White Women benefit most from so called "affirmative action." The fraudulence and cowardly filmmaking at the core of this project are laid bare with whom Wu and Miao chose to inform us about this.
Whoopi Goldberg.
Not Dr. Jennifer Pierce. Not an ivy league, critical race scholar. Not even a screenshot of that Time magazine report.
Whoopi Goldberg.
Wu, Wang and I were all present for the Seattle International Film Festival's May 13th screening of their film. During the subsequent Q & A, I asked why they chose this Lion King (1995) alumnus to share such a vital piece of information. Both filmmakers responded, saying that they wanted to pick someone that viewers would recognize. They also conceded that there are many aspects to the discussion of “affirmative action,” and they hoped the scene would encourage viewers to research more about who has benefited from this program.
Wu and Wang said what they said. Their documentary is dishonest and anti-black, and logic suggests they chose someone who worked as a comedian and is commonly thought of as a “negro" "jester” to minimize the import of the statement. Ms. Goldberg is not an academic scholar. This film has loads of prestigious-degreed students and faculty to give expert, respected opinion. Why would a five second soundbite of someone widely regarded as a “black” “clown” sway White (or non-white) opinions on this subject or even encourage them to investigate more closely?
I hoped this film would showcase many informed “asian” (non-white, non-black) people voicing their allegations of college admissions abuses and their views and frustrations about Racism in education. Many “asian” students and their parents get screen time to share a wealth of opinions.
However, Admissions Granted is an ode to a White Man. Edward Blum.
 |
| Ward Connerly & Edward Blum |
Blum has spent more than a quarter century court-clogging under the guise that “affirmative action” wrongs White people. Anyone suggesting people classified as White are somehow wounded by “affirmative action” is militantly dishonest and dedicated to White Supremacy. Blum is so refined in his practice, he’s concocted a code for showcasing his partnerships with non-white people. Decades before he met Wu and Wang, Blum teamed with “black” male Ward Connerly to scrap California’s "affirmative action" plan in higher education. Admissions Granted discusses how the elimination of California’s plan correlates with a substantial reduction in the number of “black” students in the California university system.
One glaring moment illustrates the cast and filmmakers’s overall contempt for "black" students in California and the universe.
But you have to watch a lot of Blum before you get to this part. We’re treated to Blum’s home life, career accolades, we meet his White Wife and even his hound. In contrast, "black” people are mostly shown gyrating and shouting at protests, denying their presumed welfare-ish and undeserving student status, or being called names by the filmmaker. In fact, Blum gets more screen time than all the other “asian” students, parents and faculty - who were supposed to be the center of this project. I wondered if MSNBC’s support or other funding sources for Admissions Granted were contingent on this White Man being a central component of the film. Perhaps there’s less interest for a documentary exclusively focused on genteel “asian” students’ flimsy claims of academic discrimination at Harvard.
We don’t meet Danielle R. Holley’s Dalmatians or goldfish. Classified as a “black" female, we don’t learn about Holley’s accomplishments at Harvard law school, if she met President Obama while there, or how White Supremacy/Racism hampered her pursuit of a law degree. However, Hao Wu chooses this moment to add his voice to the film. He brands then-dean of the School of Law at Howard University an “affirmative action baby.” In my technicolor dreams, Ms. Holley, the current President of Mount Holyoke College, channels the spirit of Howard alumnus Chadwick Boseman and buries a Black Panther fist in Wu’s esophagus, then has security roll him down Howard Hill.
This scene illustrates the cowardice and anti-blackness that's the bedrock for this film. Wu and Wang lack the backbone to track down Hillary Clinton, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, blond entertainment mogul Taylor Swift, or hoops phenom Caitlin Clark and publicly, correctly libel them as “affirmative action babes.” Wu didn’t raise a peep to challenge Blum in any of the scenes that made the final draft. But he finds his courageous voice to insult a “black" female and provide non-white narration to the Racist tropes of "unqualified" “black” people debunked by Dr. Pierce and many others for over a decade.
Back to that other anti-black moment in this project.
Jeff Wang is one of the “asian” students who felt aggrieved by the Harvard admissions process. He and his father, Michael, are given ample time to detail their nuanced perspective on the admissions process and “affirmative action.” When we first hear Wang’s cries of injustice, he’s sporting blond highlights. The film moves forward, with lots of Blum, and after what seems like years, Wang returns. Sans blond and well-rooted at the University of California at Berkeley, he and his “asian” pals fraternize and discuss the politics of Racism and college admissions. They briefly (nanosecond) lament the lack of “black” students on campus. Things aren’t perfect. Jeff Wang didn’t get into Harvard, but Berkeley is a world class consolation prize. Wang’s future's so bright, highlights are redundant. In their stead, seated girlfriend-ly close, a real life White Woman. With blond tips.
Blondness reigned throughout the conclusion of the film, into the Q & A period, and for the duration of the 50th annual SIFF. Admissions Granted closed with scenes of "black" people protesting in support of “affirmative action.” As the Supreme Court guts the program, a "black" female, who’s probably not going to Harvard or Berkeley, whales in despair while brandishing the US flag. Red, White, & blue frame her crown of blond locks and tears.
A few minutes after this scene, the film concluded, and the audience was allowed to ask questions. Someone I think would be classified as a “black” female shared that she really appreciated this film even though things don’t seem to be headed towards Justice. She had blond hair too.
Coloring hair isn’t criminal activity. However, what you do with your hair sends a message. And non-white people have been skillfully programmed (often with films) to poison and mutilate our bodies and minds in pursuit of White beauty standards. Standards most people classified as White flounder to achieve themselves. Non-white failure of standardized White beauty tests was a theme painfully reinforced throughout this international festival.
Admissions Granted features former C.O.W.S. guest and former Howard law professor Frank Wu. He wrote the book Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White (2002), which examines how “asian americans” have been victims of White Terrorism and their resistance. As the the term “yellow” applies to this film, it concerns the scaredy-cat filmmakers who were brave enough to confront the White man’s dog and mock a "black" female dean, but too chicken to examine White Women’s supremacy in “affirmative action.”
Wu & Wang didn’t want the White smoke with the Swifties.
** Dedicated to Akai Gurley, who did not take any Harvard slots from more qualified White or "asian" applicants.
