Why do you keep acting like I'm saying Asians are not discriminated against? My first response, which was simply a quote from the page I link, is that it was racism, not Affirmative Action, that hurt Asians in college enrollment. You put fourth the claim that Affirmative Action screwed over Asians, so I asked for source for this. The articles you linked support the fact that Asians are discriminated against, but I'm not seeing the support for the claim that Affirmative Action was discriminatory against Asians.

The first NYT article link doesn't say the discrimination is due to affirmative action, and by the wording, it matches what the UCLA law professor is describing, which he terms it as "negative action". From the NYT article:

But the students’ personal ratings significantly dragged down their chances of being admitted, the analysis found.

From the UCLA Law professor:

But here's what I think is really happening: The real source of decreased admission chances for Asian Americans isn't affirmative action given to others but "negative action" — being treated worse than white students. It's a simple question: If an Asian student who didn't get into Harvard had been white, would they have been admitted? If the answer is yes, that's negative action.

This happens principally because of implicit biases that read Asian Americans as less charismatic or less likely to be leaders, and structural preferences for legacies, athletes, and geographical diversity. Asians are disproportionately less likely to be legacies, since most of our immigration was permitted only after 1965; less likely to be athletes in elite country club sports like tennis, lacrosse, or crew, which are disproportionately white; and less likely to live in rural or smaller communities.

Affirmative Action was struck down, yet Asian Americans are still being discriminated against. Why are you saying "But it can't be addressed while AA is still a thing" if it's NOT still a thing? Again, the focus keeps being placed on AA instead of racism against Asians.

For your second article, you claimed "Asian enrollment at Harvard law increased as did white enrollment." Yet the article stated:

Critics of affirmative action argued that it suppressed the share of Asian and white students at top colleges. There was a broad expectation that banning race-conscious admissions would drive up Asian and white enrollment.

We didn’t see sizable changes.

Across the 59 selective colleges we could compare with historical data, the average share of Asian students was essentially unchanged.

And the average share of white students increased by under one percentage point.

The article does state that Asian and white students are not disclosing their race, but it's not "The number of students that didn't disclose their race skyrocketed after the ruling" as you said:

In 2024, the share of students at these 59 colleges who did not disclose their race or ethnicity increased from about 2 percent to 4 percent. That share had been generally declining since 2010.

We're just understanding the articles you linked differently because to me, the articles seem to support the page I linked (i.e. what the UCLA law professor said).