> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Affirmative Action
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

3 Takeaways From the Appeal of the Harvard Admissions Lawsuit

By  Nell Gluckman
September 16, 2020
Annenberg Hall at Harvard.
Justin Ide, Harvard U.
Annenberg Hall at Harvard U.

A federal appeals court in Boston heard arguments on Wednesday in a lawsuit that has challenged Harvard University’s consideration of race in admissions. It was the latest phase in a case that could have wide implications for affirmative action at selective colleges because it is expected to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last year a federal district judge in Boston ruled for Harvard, saying the university’s consideration of race in its admissions process was constitutional.

“The use of race benefits certain racial and ethnic groups that would otherwise be underrepresented at Harvard and is therefore neither an illegitimate use of race or reflective of racial prejudice,” the judge, Allison D. Burroughs, wrote in her decision.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

A federal appeals court in Boston heard arguments on Wednesday in a lawsuit that has challenged Harvard University’s consideration of race in admissions. It was the latest phase in a case that could have wide implications for affirmative action at selective colleges because it is expected to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last year a federal district judge in Boston ruled for Harvard, saying the university’s consideration of race in its admissions process was constitutional.

“The use of race benefits certain racial and ethnic groups that would otherwise be underrepresented at Harvard and is therefore neither an illegitimate use of race or reflective of racial prejudice,” the judge, Allison D. Burroughs, wrote in her decision.

A recap: Harvard was accused by Students for Fair Admissions, or SFFA, of discriminating against Asian Americans in its admissions process. The advocacy group alleged that Harvard had sought to “balance” its admitted class by race and fulfill racial quotas — both illegal practices — by consistently ranking Asian Americans lower on a metric of students’ personalities.

But Burroughs ruled that SFFA had not proved that Harvard admissions officers held any racial animus, nor did the group present an Asian American applicant who should have or would have been admitted to Harvard but for an improperly low personality score. SFFA appealed that ruling and made its case on Wednesday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Here are some highlights of the day’s proceedings, which took place entirely online due to the coronavirus pandemic.

ADVERTISEMENT

The two sides disagreed on what changes in Harvard’s admissions process and recent demographic shifts mean.

Around the time of the 2018 trial, Harvard updated its admissions procedures to include explicit instructions on how to use race when evaluating students’ applications. Harvard also announced last year that Asian Americans made up 25.4 percent of its Class of 2023, a proportion that Inside Higher Ed reported was the highest ever.

William S. Consovoy, the lawyer representing SFFA, suggested that those changes meant Harvard was correcting an error. He said that if this had been a different type of case — one, for example, in which “women were denied promotion not because of a lack of objective qualifications but because they didn’t fare as well on the subjective personal score” — the lawsuit wouldn’t have even gone to trial because it would have been considered clearly unfair.

Seth P. Waxman, the lawyer representing Harvard, rejected the idea that an increase in the percentage of Asian American students reflected some kind of course correction.

“With all due respect, that is like the rooster taking credit for the dawn,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

He argued that the racial makeup of classes changes from year to year, and emphasized that admissions officers don’t practice racial balancing.

“Friends of the court” clarified the stakes of the case.

Amici, or “friends of the court,” also weighed in on Wednesday. The Justice Department, which has intervened in the case to support SFFA, argued that Harvard had violated civil-rights laws. Eric S. Dreiband, an assistant attorney general, told the judges that unlike the University of Texas at Austin, whose race-conscious admissions process was upheld by the Supreme Court, Harvard’s use of race in admissions is “expansive” and “pervasive.” The University of Texas, which was also unsuccessfully sued by SFFA, considered race in reviewing only a quarter of its applicants, whereas Harvard did it throughout the process.

One of the appellate judges, Sandra L. Lynch, seemed skeptical. “Are you arguing for some sort of per se rule?” she asked. “You can consider race twice in the process?”

Lawyers for Harvard students and alumni tried to explain to the judges what was at stake. Jin Hee Lee, a lawyer with the NAACP, said that the educational system in the United States “deprives qualified and hard-working Black students from accessing important educational opportunities,” and that under SFFA’s preferred, race-neutral admissions model, Black students would suffer the most.

ADVERTISEMENT

The judges had more questions for the SFFA and the Justice Department than for Harvard.

The judges were quicker to interrupt the lawyers for SFFA and the Justice Department, and had more questions for them, than they did for Harvard’s lawyer. That could be a sign that they view Harvard’s argument as the stronger one. Two of the judges — Lynch, who was nominated by Bill Clinton, and Juan R. Torruella, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan — pressed Consovoy on whether there was evidence of racial profiling and intentional discrimination by Harvard admissions officers. (The third judge was Jeffrey R. Howard, who was nominated by George W. Bush.)

The judges told the lawyers that they would reach a decision as soon as possible, but did not indicate exactly when that would be.

Read other items in this Harvard on Trial package.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Diversity, Equity, & InclusionAdmissions & Enrollment
Nell Gluckman
Nell Gluckman is a senior reporter who writes about research, ethics, funding issues, affirmative action, and other higher-education topics. You can follow her on Twitter @nellgluckman, or email her at nell.gluckman@chronicle.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin