Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    AI and Microcredentials
Sign In
A Win for Diversity

3 Key Passages From the Harvard Decision

By Eric Hoover October 1, 2019
Protesters outside a Boston courthouse on the opening day of the trial between Students for Fair Admissions and Harvard University in 2018.
Protesters outside a Boston courthouse on the opening day of the trial between Students for Fair Admissions and Harvard University in 2018.David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

In a long-awaited decision issued on Tuesday, Allison D. Burroughs, a U.S. district-court judge, ruled that Harvard University’s race-conscious admissions process does not discriminate against Asian American students. Here are three key passages from the ruling.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Protesters outside a Boston courthouse on the opening day of the trial between Students for Fair Admissions and Harvard University in 2018.
Protesters outside a Boston courthouse on the opening day of the trial between Students for Fair Admissions and Harvard University in 2018.David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

In a long-awaited decision issued on Tuesday, Allison D. Burroughs, a U.S. district-court judge, ruled that Harvard University’s race-conscious admissions process does not discriminate against Asian American students. Here are three key passages from the ruling.

There was no “systemic reliance on racial stereotypes.”

During last fall’s trial, Students for Fair Admissions, the plaintiff in the case, introduced evidence of what it called bias and stereotyping. That evidence included instances in which Harvard’s admissions officers referred to Asian American applicants as “quiet,” a “hard worker,” and “bright” as well as “bland,” “flat,” and “not exciting.”

About 200 students, alumni, and employees of Harvard U. gathered in Harvard Square on October 14, 2018, as a lawsuit challenging the university’s use of race in admissions was about to open in federal court in Boston.
Harvard on Trial
Detailed background on the lawsuit over the university’s race-conscious admissions policy, the case’s implications for selective colleges, and coverage of the trial as it unfolded, in a federal court in Boston.
  • Harvard Doesn’t Discriminate Against Asian American Applicants, U.S. Appeals Court Rules
  • 3 Takeaways From the Appeal of the Harvard Admissions Lawsuit
  • A Judge Advised Harvard to Give Its Admissions Officers Training to Stop Bias. Will That Help?

In her decision Burroughs wrote: “SFFA has not shown that any applicant was referred to by these types of descriptors because of their race or that there was any sort of systemic reliance on racial stereotypes. The docket binder that contains notes to the effect that several Asian American applicants were ‘quiet’ or ‘flat’ also includes notes for white, African American, and Hispanic students who were also described as ‘quiet,’ ‘shy,’ or ‘understated.’ In the absence of a pattern or a more pervasive use of stereotypes, the court accepts that there are Asian American applicants who were ‘quiet’ and that the use of this word … would be truthful and accurate rather than reflective of impermissible stereotyping.”

During the trial, Harvard’s lawyers repeatedly noted that SFFA did not call a single applicant as a witness.

The court found no evidence of “an individual applicant whom it can determine was discriminated against or intentionally stereotyped by an admissions officer, including by the use of the words ‘standard strong,’” a term admissions officers used to describe some applicants.

Admissions decisions can’t be reduced to numbers.

During the trial, two prominent economists presented dueling statistical analyses. Each was meant to answer the same question: Does Harvard discriminate against Asian American applicants? The question loomed over discussions of Harvard’s personal ratings for applicants.

ADVERTISEMENT

The two star witnesses arrived at very different conclusions. SFFA’s expert found evidence of intentional discrimination; Harvard’s found none. Essentially, those experts canceled each other out. Although Burroughs found Harvard’s statistical analysis to be more convincing, she also made a crucial point about the limits of such numbers.

“The statistics themselves are not enough,” she wrote. “Even assuming that there is a statistically significant difference between how Asian American and white applicants score on the personal rating, the data does not clearly say what accounts for the difference. In other words, although the statistics perhaps tell ‘what,’ they do not tell ‘why,’ and here the ‘why’ is critically important. Further, by its very nature, the personal score includes, and should include, aspects of an applicant and his or her application that are not easily quantifiable and therefore cannot be fully captured by statistical data.”

But Burroughs also wrote that data analyses can reveal “imperceptible statistical anomalies” that colleges should consider: “These sorts of statistics should be used as a check on the process and as a way to recognize when implicit bias might be affecting outcomes.”

Stories matter.

In a trial dominated by statistical analyses, personal stories seemed to matter a lot, too. In a footnote, Burroughs noted the testimony of Ruth J. Simmons, president of Prairie View A&M University and, as a former president of Brown, the first African American president of an Ivy League university. Simmons’s father was a janitor and her mother was a maid, yet she got her master’s and doctorate from Harvard.

ADVERTISEMENT

Burroughs wrote that the benefit to students of a diverse campus is “they get a better education, a deeper education, and a truer education to deal with what they’re going to have to deal with in life.”

Burroughs called that testimony “perhaps the most cogent and compelling testimony presented at this trial.” In her conclusion, the judge linked the benefits of diversity to Harvard’s selection process. “The eloquent testimony captures what is important about diversity in education,” she wrote. “For purposes of this case, at least for now, ensuring diversity at Harvard relies, in part, on race-conscious admissions.”

Eric Hoover writes about the challenges of getting to, and through, college. Follow him on Twitter @erichoov, or email him, at eric.hoover@chronicle.com.

A version of this article appeared in the October 11, 2019, issue.
Read other items in Harvard on Trial.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Admissions & Enrollment
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
Eric Hoover
About the Author
Eric Hoover
Eric Hoover writes about the challenges of getting to, and through, college. Follow him on Twitter @erichoov, or email him, at eric.hoover@chronicle.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Photo illustration showing Santa Ono seated, places small in the corner of a dark space
'Unrelentingly Sad'
Santa Ono Wanted a Presidency. He Became a Pariah.
Illustration of a rushing crowd carrying HSI letters
Seeking precedent
Funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions Is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Argues
Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through paper that is a photo of an idyllic liberal arts college campus on one side and money on the other
Finance
Small Colleges Are Banding Together Against a Higher Endowment Tax. This Is Why.
Pano Kanelos, founding president of the U. of Austin.
Q&A
One Year In, What Has ‘the Anti-Harvard’ University Accomplished?

From The Review

Photo- and type-based illustration depicting the acronym AAUP with the second A as the arrow of a compass and facing not north but southeast.
The Review | Essay
The Unraveling of the AAUP
By Matthew W. Finkin
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome propped on a stick attached to a string, like a trap.
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Can’t Trust the Federal Government. What Now?
By Brian Rosenberg
Illustration of an unequal sign in black on a white background
The Review | Essay
What Is Replacing DEI? Racism.
By Richard Amesbury

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin