As Harvard Trial Winds Down, Admissions Director Takes the Stand — Again

Two weeks after testifying here in federal court, Marlyn E. McGrath, Harvard College’s director of admissions, took the witness stand again on Thursday. Her surprising reappearance injected some drama into the final hours of this closely watched trial.

Lawyers for Students for Fair Admissions recalled McGrath to explain what they suggested was an apparent discrepancy in her testimony. When questioned two week ago, she said that the institution had no written guidelines for using race in its evaluation of applicants. But this fall Harvard did, in fact, give its admissions staff explicit guidelines on race for selecting the Class of 2023.

The guidelines say that admissions officers may consider an applicant’s race when assigning an overall rating, which happens early in the evaluation process. Readers “may consider whether a student’s background, including his or her race or ethnicity, may contribute to the educational benefits of diversity at Harvard College,” the guidelines say. “The consideration of race or ethnicity may be considered only as one factor among many.” The word “only” is boldfaced and underlined.

Students for Fair Admissions, an organization that opposes race-conscious admissions programs, says Harvard discriminates against Asian-American applicants. The three-week trial prompted by the group’s lawsuit is expected to end on Friday.

Besides giving applicants an overall rating, the university’s admissions officers assign them a score in each of four categories: athletic ability, academic achievement, extracurricular activities, and personal qualities. Students for Fair Admissions alleges that the university penalizes Asian-American applicants on the personal rating.

Adam K. Mortara, a lawyer representing the plaintiff, asked McGrath to explain her previous testimony in light of the new guidelines. “The reason I gave a different answer,” McGrath said, “is that I had in mind those earlier reading instructions, which had been the subject of my review for the testimony.”

McGrath spoke almost too softly to hear. Mortara did not.

The lawyer asked if a reasonable person assessing the facts might conclude that the new guidelines were “designed to help ensure that admissions officers do not fall prey to implicit bias or racial stereotyping against Asian-Americans.”

McGrath paused. Though the guidelines might have that effect, she said, they did not reflect a new way of thinking about race. Her answer seemed to echo what a Harvard spokeswoman told The Chronicle in an email last week: “Harvard College’s admissions policies remain the same, the reading procedures are reissued annually, and 2023 procedures are this year’s version.” Harvard officials have strongly denied that they discriminate against Asian-American applicants.

‘I Was in Montana’

Mortara then described several emails in which Harvard officials circulated proposed revisions in its application-reading procedures over the summer. In one draft, admissions officers were advised to consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity only if he or she mentioned it (say, in an essay). Even then, the draft said, admissions officers should focus on “the effect” that students’ race or ethnicity had on them, not just that they had checked a particular box.

But that language, Mortara noted, was removed from the final guidelines.

He asked McGrath why.

She said she didn’t know.

“Is it possible,” Mortara asked, “that the person who suggested its elimination was a lawyer?”

That prompted an objection from one of Harvard’s lawyers. It was sustained.

Mortara continued to press McGrath. He cited a 1990 report by U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which had investigated whether Harvard used illegal quotas to limit the admission of Asian-American applicants. That report, he said, found that Harvard’s admissions officers had no written guidance on using race at the time. (The report also cleared the university of racial discrimination.)

“Twenty-eight years later,” Mortara said, “there still wasn’t any written instructions on how to use race? And then, a few weeks ago, it was added for the first time?”

The guidelines changed every year, McGrath said, to some degree.

Mortara asked her again about the timing of the revised guidelines, which were apparently changed in July or August. In June, Students for Fair Admissions filed numerous documents about the case in federal court, prompting a wave of international publicity that continued all summer.

“What was the most important national news,” Mortara asked, “going on … over the summer for the Harvard admissions office?”

McGrath said she wasn’t sure.

“As it pertained to your job,” he said.

“I was in Montana,” McGrath said. “The newspapers are terrible.”

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?

Later, William F. Lee, a lawyer representing Harvard, said that the period of discovery for the trial was 2012 to 2014, including admissions data for the Classes of 2014 to 2019. He reiterated McGrath’s statement that the guidelines for reading admissions files change each year.

Later, Harvard’s lawyers called Drew Gilpin Faust, expected to be the trial’s final witness. Faust, who stepped down this past summer as president of the university, said it was committed to diversity and inclusion: “There is no place for discrimination of any kind at Harvard.”

On Friday both sides plan to make their closing arguments. Then, after 15 days of testimony and thousands of news reports, the wait for the judge’s ruling will begin.

Eric Hoover writes about admissions trends, enrollment-management challenges, and the meaning of Animal House, among other issues. He’s on Twitter @erichoov, and his email address is eric.hoover@chronicle.com.