Harvard Is Challenged on Whether Socioeconomic Status Should Replace Race as Admissions Factor

The question of whether Harvard University could use socioeconomic status instead of race in admissions, and still achieve the diversity it seeks, was debated here on Monday in a federal courtroom. It was the start of the second week of a trial that has forced Harvard to defend itself against claims that it discriminates against Asian-American applicants.

Two new witnesses were asked about the issue: Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, who testified for the plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions; and Rakesh Khurana, dean of Harvard College, the university’s undergraduate division.

A lawyer representing Students for Fair Admissions, Adam K. Mortara, showed Khurana data suggesting that about 30 percent of Harvard undergraduates come from households that earn $150,000 or more annually. Mortara asked if the university’s student body should better reflect the socioeconomic makeup of the United States.

“What is so special about wealthy people that Harvard needs to have them overrepresented?” he asked Khurana. The dean responded that all of the university’s students are qualified to be there.

Students for Fair Admissions, which sued Harvard in 2014, was created by Edward J. Blum, a conservative activist who has challenged affirmative action at several universities. The group has alleged that Harvard discriminates against Asian-American students in its admissions process.

Still, there wasn’t much talk of Asian-American students in court on Monday. Kahlenberg spoke about several models that economists had created to determine whom Harvard would admit if it considered different factors than it does today. He has argued in several books and “hundreds of articles” that colleges should use socioeconomic status, not race, to diversify their classes.

Kahlenberg said the models showed that Harvard would still be racially diverse if admissions officials did not consider the race of applicants, but gave a greater preference to applicants from low-income families.

In each of the models he reviewed, the portion of African-American students admitted declined, from 14 percent to 10 percent or lower. The number of white applicants admitted stayed the same — at 40 percent — or decreased, and the number of Asian-American admittees increased, from 24 percent to around 30 percent. The number of Latino and Latina applicants either stayed the same — at 14 percent — or rose slightly. The portion of economically disadvantaged students grew from 18 percent to roughly 50 percent in each of the models.

“Socioeconomic diversity at Harvard,” Kahlenberg said, “is deeply lacking.”

‘The Bigger Picture’

One of Harvard’s lawyers, William F. Lee, emphasized that Kahlenberg had been paid by Students for Fair Admissions, not only to testify on Monday but also as a consultant when the organization was drafting its original complaint, in 2014. He noted that Kahlenberg has known Blum since 2003.

“You have a mutual interest in affirmative action?” Lee asked. “And you understand Mr. Blum’s aim is to eliminate affirmative action?” Kahlenberg agreed. He’d said earlier in his testimony that race should be considered only as “a last resort” if other factors fail to increase diversity.

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?

Lee noted that, in every model, the portion of African-American students drops when race-neutral alternatives are used. Kahlenberg responded that a variety of factors contribute to diversity and the educational benefits that diversity can bring to a campus.

“I don’t look at one tiny aspect of the bigger picture,” he said.

A Harvard committee — made up of Khurana; William R. Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions; and Michael D. Smith, then the dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences — analyzed the models created by the economists. In a report published in April 2018, the committee concluded that “no workable race-neutral admissions practices” would allow the university to achieve the racial diversity it wants while maintaining academic standards.

“If Harvard were to greatly increase the weight given to socioeconomic circumstances in the manner discussed above, it would run a significant risk of diminishing the academic excellence of the class,” the report said. Kahlenberg said he thought the Harvard report was not convincing.

Lee argued that Kahlenberg’s testimony was not credible because he had made up his mind about affirmative action and race-conscious admissions long before he reviewed the economists’ models.

The day after Students for Fair Admissions filed suit, in 2014, Kahlenberg told Fox News that the evidence suggests Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans, Lee pointed out. At Lee’s prompting, Kahlenberg also said that he’d made up his mind about the issue back when he was a student at Harvard, in the 1980s.

In a minor development on Monday, the judge, Allison D. Burroughs of the Federal District Court, addressed concerns raised by a weekend email, sent to lawyers working on the case and several reporters, asserting that Burroughs had applied but was not admitted to Harvard even though her father, Warren H. Burroughs, was a graduate. The email suggested that she was therefore biased. Lawyers for both sides expressed confidence in her ability to fairly try the case. The judge disclosed her Harvard-application experience before the trial opened.

Khurana will continue testifying on Tuesday.

Nell Gluckman writes about faculty issues and other topics in higher education. You can follow her on Twitter @nellgluckman, or email her at nell.gluckman@chronicle.com.