In a legal battle that blends the complexities of elite university admissions with the cutting edge of generative AI, a Palo Alto father is attempting to challenge the systemic nature of college rejections. Nan Zhong has filed multiple lawsuits against several major university systems, alleging that his son, Stanley, was the victim of racial discrimination during the admissions process.
The case centers on a striking contrast in perceived value: Stanley Zhong, then 18, graduated from Gunn High School with a 4.4 GPA and a 1590 SAT score, yet was rejected by 16 of the 18 colleges he applied to. Despite the academic snub, Stanley’s technical proficiency was immediately recognized by the private sector; he was hired as a software engineer at Google, where he has since earned an “outstanding impact” performance rating in 2025—a mark Nan Zhong notes is higher than that of the majority of Google engineers.
What makes the litigation unique is not just the claim of bias, but the method of pursuit. After dozens of local and national law firms declined to take the case, the Zhong family turned to artificial intelligence to bridge the gap in legal expertise. By using a suite of AI models to analyze legal questions and draft filings, the family is now acting as their own counsel in a high-stakes fight against some of the most powerful educational institutions in the United States.
The Shift from Dialogue to Litigation
The decision to sue was not immediate. Nan Zhong describes a year-long period of discussions with officials from the University of California (UC) system in an attempt to understand the rejections. According to Zhong, the turning point occurred when a UC admissions director informed him via email that allegations of racial discrimination were unfounded because California law prohibits such practices.
For Nan Zhong, this response was a logical paradox. He argues that the mere existence of a law banning discrimination does not prove that the law is being followed in secret. This realization, coupled with unsuccessful attempts to engage state lawmakers and Governor Gavin Newsom, led the family to seek judicial remedy.
The resulting lawsuits target a broad spectrum of elite institutions, including the University of California, the University of Washington, the University of Michigan, and Cornell University. The family’s objective is to expose what they believe are covert discriminatory practices that persist despite official policies and state laws.
Leveraging AI as a ‘Virtual Legal Team’
As a former software engineer, I’ve seen AI disrupt many industries, but its application here as a replacement for a legal team is a provocative experiment in “access to justice.” Faced with approaching statutes of limitation and a lack of professional representation, the Zhongs treated the legal process like a technical problem.
Nan Zhong explains that they do not rely on a single AI tool, which would be risky given the tendency for large language models to “hallucinate” or misinterpret legal precedent. Instead, they use multiple AI models simultaneously to cross-reference legal questions, compare answers, and mitigate errors. This iterative process, Zhong says, is akin to having a team of top-tier lawyers working in tandem to refine the strategy.
This approach has already yielded a tangible result. In the case against the University of Washington, a judge recently rejected the university’s motion to stay the case, allowing the litigation to proceed. This is a significant procedural win for a pro se litigant (someone representing themselves) using AI-assisted research.
The ‘Evergreen’ Standing Strategy
A critical component of the Zhongs’ legal strategy involves “standing”—the legal right to bring a lawsuit. In many admissions cases, students lose their standing once they progress too far into a degree program at another institution, as the “injury” of the rejection is seen as moot.
Stanley Zhong, now 21, possesses a unique advantage: he has not yet enrolled in college. Because he remains eligible to apply or attend at any time, Nan Zhong describes this as “evergreen legal standing,” which prevents the universities from arguing that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff has already moved on with his education.
| Period | Event/Status | Outcome/Detail |
|---|---|---|
| High School Graduation | Applied to 18 Colleges | Rejected by 16 institutions |
| Post-Graduation | Professional Hire | Joined Google as Software Engineer |
| 2023-2024 | Administrative Phase | Discussions with UC officials and state leaders |
| 2025 | Professional Review | Received “outstanding impact” performance rating |
| Present | Litigation Phase | Active lawsuits via AI-assisted self-representation |
A Broader Movement Against Admissions Bias
The Zhong family views their struggle as part of a larger systemic issue. They point to the shifting legal landscape, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Harvard case which effectively banned affirmative action, as evidence that elite universities have historically manipulated admissions to achieve specific racial balances.
To expand their impact beyond a single family’s grievance, they have established a nonprofit organization called SWORD (Students Who Oppose Racial Discrimination). The organization aims to provide a platform and resources for other students who believe they have been unfairly rejected based on race. To fund these efforts and the significant personal costs of litigation, the family has also utilized a GoFundMe campaign.
The case highlights a growing tension in the “meritocracy” of American education. When a student with near-perfect scores is rejected by nearly every top-tier school but is simultaneously deemed an elite talent by one of the world’s most competitive tech companies, it raises fundamental questions about how universities define “qualified” and whether those definitions are applied equitably across different racial groups.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The next phase of the legal process will center on the discovery phase and further hearings in the University of Washington case, where the court will determine the admissibility of evidence regarding admissions criteria. We will continue to monitor the filings as the Zhong family tests the viability of AI-driven litigation in the federal court system.
Do you think AI can effectively replace legal counsel in complex civil rights cases? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
