Harvard Officials, Accused of Racial Bias, Defend Their Admissions Policy

One week into a trial challenging Harvard University’s use of race in admissions decisions, the strategies of each side are starting to come into focus.

Students for Fair Admissions, the group that sued the university in 2014, has sought to show that Harvard admissions officials try to admit target numbers of students in different racial and ethnic groups. Lawyers for the organization have tried to use data compiled by the university’s Office of Institutional Research and testimony by Harvard officials to show that Asian-American applicants are penalized in personal ratings given by admissions officials. On Friday they tried to make the case that Harvard College’s director of admissions had a bias against Asian-Americans.

The university vehemently denies those claims. Its lawyers have argued that the data being presented does not show the full picture of how the admissions office works. Harvard officials have said that they do consider applicants’ race when evaluating them — it’s not something that can be divorced from a person’s life experience, they say. But they insist that they never consider it a negative factor.

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?

However the judge rules, the case is likely to be appealed, and may end up before the U.S. Supreme Count, which could issue a decision that significantly challenges many colleges’ use of affirmative action. Lawyers for Students for Fair Admissions have said that “affirmative action is not on trial,” but in parts of their argument on Friday they seemed to be making a case against any consideration of race in admissions.

Adam K. Mortara, a lawyer for the organization, questioned Marlyn E. McGrath, director of admissions for Harvard College, the university’s undergraduate division, about how race and religion are considered in admissions.

“Harvard does not track the religious identity of applicants, do you?” Mortara said. At his prompting, McGrath explained that when applicants check a box on the Common Application indicating their religion, that information is not seen by Harvard admissions officials. She said that practice had been established on the advice of Harvard’s lawyers. But if applicants disclose their religion elsewhere in their application, she said, Harvard officials would know about it.

Mortara asked McGrath if that lack of information was an obstacle in evaluating an applicant. She said it was not.

“Would you consider it to be a disadvantage if you could not consider their race?” he asked. McGrath said it would.

Confounding a Stereotype

Mortara also showed the court emails between McGrath and her daughter, who was an alumni interviewer for Harvard. The emails were heavily redacted, but one suggested that the top students admitted from Utah were of Asian descent.

“Sending this along for your amusement. Pure Utah,” McGrath wrote to her daughter. When asked why she thought it was amusing, McGrath said that it “confounds the stereotype that many people have of Utah.”

Lawyers for Students for Fair Admissions also asked questions about other communications. In one letter McGrath responded politely to an older Harvard alumnus who had suggested limiting the admission of Japanese students. And in another email exchange with her daughter, she wrote about a well-connected student, the child of an alumnus or alumna, who had been admitted.

A Harvard lawyer, William F. Lee, later asked McGrath if she understood that she was being accused by Mortara of having a bias against Asian-Americans. She said she did understand.

“Is that true?” Lee asked.

“No,” McGrath responded.

Earlier in the day, Students for Fair Admissions lawyers focused their questioning on a series of charts that were created by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research in 2013 and shared with admissions officers.

The charts were meant to help Harvard officials analyze “tips” applicants could receive for increasing their chances of admission. One tip — a personal rating that admissions officials give each applicant based on interviews, recommendations, and other factors — appears to show that being Asian-American can hurt an applicant’s chances.

The Harvard officials on the stand said the analyses were meant to be exploratory and did not offer a complete picture of what admissions officials actually do. Some of the analyses were incomplete, they said, and oversimplified. They added that the analyses could not be used to draw conclusions about the effects of race on admissions officers’ decisions, and have pointed out that the work also shows that low-income students of all racial and ethnic groups receive a tip in their process.

They have said that they do not generally consider race in the personal rating — though it can sometimes be relevant if an applicant has overcome adversity because of his or her race — but do consider it in the overall rating.

The trial will continue on Monday and is expected to last about three weeks.

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.