Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard is a lawsuit filed by the organization Students for Fair Admissions and other plaintiffs, in the U.S. federal district court in Massachusetts in 2014, against Harvard University, claiming that Harvard discriminates against Asian-American applicants in its undergraduate admissions process.

Harvard College freshman dormitories in Harvard Yard

On October 1, 2019, judge Allison D. Burroughs rejected the plaintiffs' claims, ruling that Harvard's admissions practices meet constitutional requirements and do not illicitly discriminate against Asian Americans.[1] SFFA filed an appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral argument scheduled for September 2020.[2][3] Some commentators expect the case to eventually reach the United States Supreme Court.[4]

Law on affirmative action

Harvard is a private university, but it receives federal funding, making it subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws racial discrimination.[5] Race-conscious admissions policies may be legal, but must pass the “strict scrutiny” test, which requires that the use of race serve a “compelling governmental interest” — like the educational benefits that stem from diversity — and be “narrowly tailored” to satisfy that interest.[6]

A "whole person review" process that considers many qualities about each candidate, including race, in its admissions process, is legal under Supreme Court's ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) (known as Fisher II) and its predecessors.[7] However, racial quotas are illegal under the Supreme Court's ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978).[7] In the Fisher I case (2013), the Supreme Court additionally held that colleges must prove that race-based admissions policies are the only way to meet diversity goals.[8]

Lawsuit

The Project on Fair Representation, whose director and sole member is activist Edward Blum, aims to end racial classifications in education, voting procedures, legislative redistricting, and employment. An offshoot of Blum's organization, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Harvard University on November 17, 2014.[9] Asian-Americans advocacy groups, with tens of thousands of members, filed amicus briefs in support of SFFA, believing that they or their children are discriminated against in college admission processes.[7]

In the lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that Harvard imposes a soft racial quota, which keeps the numbers of Asian-Americans artificially low.[1] The percentage of Asians admitted to Harvard, plaintiffs claimed, was suspiciously similar year after year despite dramatic increases in the number of Asian-American applicants and the size of the Asian-American population.[5]

Harvard denies engaging in discrimination and said its admissions philosophy complies with the law. The school said the percentage of Asian-American students admitted has grown from 17% to 21% in a decade while Asian-Americans represent around 6% of the U.S. population.[10] Various students, alumni and external groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs on both sides.[11][12][13]

The case was paused until the Supreme Court clarified relevant law and issued its decision in Fisher II on June 23, 2016. The case resumed, and oral arguments were heard in Massachusetts federal district court in Boston in October 2018.[14]

Personality scores of Asian-Americans

During the proceeding, it was revealed that Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like positive personality, likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected.[1] Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on other admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, but the students’ personal ratings significantly dragged down their admissions chances.[1] Alumni interviewers give Asian-Americans personal ratings comparable to white applicants, but Harvard's admissions office rates Asians as the worst scores of any racial group.[1]

Harvard itself found a bias against Asian-American applicants in an internal investigation in 2013, but had never made the findings public or acted on them.[1] Plaintiffs and commentators have compared the treatment of Asians with the Jewish quota in place in the early 20th century, which used deficient personalities as the reason for excluding Jews in elite universities.[5][1]

Decision and appeal

In October 2019, federal judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that Harvard College’s admissions policies do not illegally discriminate against Asian Americans.[2] While the system is “not perfect,” the judge ruled, it nonetheless passes constitutional muster.[2] In her ruling, Judge Burroughs states that there are “no quotas” in place at Harvard, despite acknowledging that the school “uses the racial makeup of admitted students to help determine how many students it should admit overall.”[5] She also writes that it’s “possible” that the Asian applicants “did not possess the personal qualities that Harvard is looking for at the same rate as white applicants.”[5]

In February 2020, SFFA filed an appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.[2] The appeals court is required to take the case and will likely hear oral arguments.[2] The Justice Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief, arguing that Harvard University unlawfully discriminates against Asian Americans through racial quotas and imposing a “a racial penalty by systematically disfavoring Asian-American applicants."[15]

Complaints by Asian-American groups

On May 15, 2015, a coalition of more than 60 Asian-American organizations filed federal complaints with the United States Department of Education and Department of Justice against Harvard University. The coalition asked for a civil rights investigation into what it described as Harvard's discriminatory admission practices against Asian-American applicants.[16][17][18] Opposition from Asian-American groups had also led to the withdrawal of California's SCA-5, which would reauthorize the use of race-based affirmative action, currently banned by California Proposition 209.[19] The complaints at the Department of Education was dismissed in July 2015 because a lawsuit making similar allegations was filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) in November 2014. In 2019, Department of Justice under the Trump administration opened an investigation into allegations against Harvard’s policies raised in the SFFA lawsuit.[20] That investigation was pending as of August 2018.[20]

According to the complaints, multiple studies have indicated that Harvard has engaged in systematic and continuous discrimination against Asian Americans in its subjective “holistic” college admissions process. They say Asian-American applicants with near-perfect test scores, top-one-percent grade point averages, academic awards, and leadership positions are unjustifiably rejected by Harvard. The discriminatory practices Harvard is alleged to have used include racial stereotypes, racially differentiated standards, and de facto racial quotas.[21]

The studies cited in the complaints include:[22]

  • Golden (2007) The discrimination against Asian Americans by Harvard and other elite universities was so severe that Golden dedicated a chapter, "The New Jews”, to comparing it to the discrimination suffered by Jewish Americans in the 1920s and 1930s. He wrote that "most elite universities have maintained a triple standard in college admissions, setting the bar highest for Asians, next for whites and lowest for blacks and Hispanics".
  • Espenshade & Radford (2009) Asian Americans have the lowest acceptance rate for each SAT test score bracket, needing to score on average 140 points higher than a white student, 270 points higher than a Hispanic student, and 450 points higher than a black student.[23]
  • Unz (2012) The percentage of Asians at Harvard peaked at over 20% in 1993, then immediately declined and thereafter remained roughly constant at a level 3–5 percentage points lower, despite the fact that the Asian-American population has more than doubled since 1993. "The relative enrollment of Asians at Harvard was plummeting, dropping by over half during the last twenty years, with a range of similar declines also occurring at Yale, Cornell, and most other Ivy League universities."
  • Sander (2014) "No other racial or ethnic group at these three of the most selective Ivy League schools is as underrepresented relative to its application numbers as are Asian- Americans."
gollark: Idea: rebrand PHP as an esolang.
gollark: Idea: esolang compiling to powerpoint.
gollark: /r/ihavereddit
gollark: crafting tables.
gollark: This is Microsoft, where the GTech computer factory is.

See also

References
  1. Hartocollis, Anemona (June 15, 2018). "Harvard Rated Asian-American Applicants Lower on Personality Traits, Suit Says". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 13, 2020.
  2. Hartocollis, Anemona (February 18, 2020). "The Affirmative Action Battle at Harvard Is Not Over". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 13, 2020.
  3. Korn, Melissa (August 14, 2020). "Yale Discriminated by Race in Undergraduate Admissions, Justice Department Says". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved August 14, 2020.
  4. "Harvard Does Not Discriminate Against Asian-Americans in Admissions, Judge Rules". New York Times. October 1, 2019.
  5. Riley, Jason L. (October 8, 2019). "Opinion | Harvard's Asian Quotas Repeat an Ugly History". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved May 13, 2020.
  6. "Federal Judge Rules Harvard's Admissions Policies Do Not Discriminate Against Asian American Applicants | News | The Harvard Crimson". www.thecrimson.com. Retrieved May 13, 2020.
  7. Hsu, Hua. "The Rise and Fall of Affirmative Action". The New Yorker. Retrieved May 13, 2020.
  8. "Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard: Will the Case Sound the Death Knell for Affirmative Action?". www.americanbar.org. Retrieved May 13, 2020.
  9. Lockhart, P. R. (October 18, 2018). "The lawsuit against Harvard that could change affirmative action in college admissions, explained". Vox. Retrieved May 13, 2020.
  10. "Is Harvard Showing Bias Against Asian-Americans?". NPR.org. Retrieved May 13, 2020.
  11. Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Amicus Brief https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/SFFA-v-Harvard-Amicus-Brief.pdf
  12. "NAACP LDF AMICI CURIAE BRIEF" (PDF). projects harvard /files/diverse-education/files/cdh_brief.pdf. July 30, 2018. Retrieved November 9, 2018.
  13. "Standing with Harvard in admissions case". Harvard Gazette. July 31, 2018. Retrieved November 9, 2018.
  14. "Question at center of Harvard trial: What counts as discrimination?". Boston Globe. October 21, 2018.
  15. Anderson, Nick (February 26, 2020). "Justice Department argues Harvard's use of race in admissions violates civil rights law". Washington Post. Retrieved May 13, 2020.
  16. Asian American Coalition, ASIAN-AMERICAN GROUPS ACCUSE HARVARD OF DISCRIMINATION IN FEDERAL COMPLAINT.
  17. Harvard Admissions Discrimination: Coalition Accuses University Of Bias Against Asian-Americans.
  18. Harvard faces bias complaint from Asian-American groups.
  19. Shyong, Frank (May 18, 2014). "Affirmative action amendment divides state's Asian Americans".
  20. "Trump administration backs Asian Americans suing Harvard over its affirmative action admissions policy". Los Angeles Times. August 30, 2018. Retrieved May 13, 2020.
  21. Investigate Harvard's Discrimination against Asian American Applicants Archived August 10, 2015, at the Wayback Machine.
  22. Complaint Against Harvard University and the President and Fellows of Harvard College for Discriminating Against Asian-American Applicants in the College Admission Process Archived June 7, 2015, at the Wayback Machine.
  23. Espenshade, Thomas J.; Walton Radford, Alexandria (2009). No longer separate, not yet equal: race and class in elite college admission and campus life. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691141602.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.