Harvard’s Admissions Process Was Just Dissected in Federal Court. How Did It Hold Up?

How much racial diversity does your college need? Can you measure the amount?

What’s so special about wealthy people that earns them a boost in the admissions process?

Why do Asian-American applicants tend to score lower on a personality rating than do applicants of other races?

Those are the kinds of questions campus officials can expect to field when their admissions policies are challenged in court. In a three-week trial that wrapped up in Boston on Friday, it was Harvard College leaders who had to search for answers. Accused of discriminating against Asian-American applicants, the Harvard officials took to the stand, one by one, to lay out the details of their admissions process in an attempt to prove that they were not violating civil-rights laws.

It was almost certainly not the first time they had thought about those questions. But they had never before been forced to answer them in such a public setting. The result was some revealing exchanges about the factors that Harvard officials weigh as they try to cull a pool of about 40,000 applicants to enroll a 1,700-person undergraduate class.

Harvard’s admissions process was under the microscope, but officials at selective colleges and universities across the country were watching. In a show of support, 16 private institutions submitted a joint brief to the court defending race-conscious admissions. That’s because the lawsuit at issue was brought by Students for Fair Admissions, a group whose founder, Edward J. Blum, seems willing to do whatever it takes to end affirmative action, at least in its current form.

No matter what the judge decides, there’s wide speculation that the case will be appealed and end up before a conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court, putting affirmative action in peril.

So what was revealed about a once-secret process that, despite accusations of discrimination, is still considered something of a standard-bearer in college admissions? And how well did that process come across?

When, exactly, race is considered.

Harvard officials have long been clear about one thing: They do consider race in their admissions process. Giving students the opportunity to learn from their peers with different backgrounds is one of the most important parts of an education that a college can offer, said William R. Fitzsimmons, Harvard’s dean of admissions. “They would learn a great deal more about what the country is really like,” he said, something that will be even more important to students once they graduate.

Most colleges share that perspective to some degree and can cite research that says diversity improves the educational experience, a view endorsed by the Supreme Court. But it’s one thing to strive for diversity; it’s another to tease out exactly how to achieve it. When asked whether Harvard is striving for a certain level of diversity, officials answered that it is not. Suggesting otherwise might lead the judge to conclude that Harvard has racial quotas, an illegal practice that the plaintiff has accused the university of using.

But the Harvard officials do know that there is a level of diversity that they would consider too low. Statistical models that predict what would happen if Harvard stopped considering race show that the percentage of African-American and Latino and Latina students on the campus would drop by about 50 percent. Michael D. Smith, the former dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Science, said that university officials were not willing to let that happen. They didn’t want to further isolate the underrepresented minority students already at Harvard, he said.

And what about Asian-American applicants? The central allegation leveled by Students for Fair Admissions is that being Asian-American is effectively a penalty in the admissions process. Statistical models created by Peter S. Arcidiacono, a Duke University economist who testified for the organization, showed that Asian-American applicants with the highest grade-point averages and SAT scores are admitted at lower rates than are applicants of other races with similar grades and scores.

Harvard officials denied that there is an Asian-American penalty. But they agreed that being Asian-American doesn’t, on its own, help applicants. Harvard’s expert economist, the University of California at Berkeley professor David Card, testified that his statistical models do not show a “tip,” or boost, for Asian-American students.

African-American and Latino and Latina applicants do get a “tip” for their race, which can make a difference for them in the admissions process, Harvard officials testified. But exactly when that “tip” comes into play and how it works was a point of contention. It led to awkward exchanges during which admissions officials toggled between describing race as a factor that allows them to assess the “whole person” and one that can be disregarded at certain points in the process.

For example, admissions officials give each applicant a personal rating. Students for Fair Admissions alleged that Asian-Americans consistently received lower personal ratings, an indication of racial bias. But Harvard officials said that they do not consider race when assigning the personal rating.

What if applicants write eloquently in a personal essay about overcoming discrimination because of their race? Would that be factored into an assessment of their personality? Fitzsimmons seemed to agree that it would.

Whether you view that as a problem says a lot about how much you think the admissions process should strive for objectivity. For Students for Fair Admissions, Fitzsimmons’s answer is evidence of an inconsistent process — one that, until recently, included no written guidelines for how to factor in race. For Harvard, it’s evidence that each applicant is considered individually, by many people. There’s no formula or golden ticket that will guarantee acceptance.

Whether the process widens or narrows socioeconomic divides.

Another “tip” Harvard doesn’t deny? Being the child of alumni or connected to a big donor. While university officials noted that about 20 percent of Harvard students come from families that earn less than $65,000 a year, the benefits received by well-connected applicants were hard to miss.

Applicants whose parents went to Harvard get in at a much higher rate than the rest of the pool. About 15 percent of Harvard’s undergraduate population is from families that make $650,000 or more per year; more than two-thirds come from families that make at least $110,000 per year, putting them in the top 20 percent of earners.

The trial revealed some of the mechanics behind how those students get in. Emails presented during Fitzsimmons’s testimony showed officials across the university bringing to his attention applicants who were connected to wealthy families. An email from a fund-raising official described a donor with “an art collection, which conceivably could come our way.” Another dean congratulated him for admitting a student who was connected to someone who “already committed to a building.”

Fitzsimmons testified about a “dean’s list” that he said included well-connected applicants. Members of Harvard’s fund-raising office could add names to the list regardless of how strong their applications were. Students on the list who were not admitted got a call from him.

There’s also a “z-list,” made up of well-connected students who are admitted on the condition that they defer a year. Such a fate is called being “z-listed.”

Harvard’s witnesses were forced to defend such practices, even while trying to portray their institution as an equalizing force in the country. Fitzsimmons said that it’s precisely Harvard’s intent to “make sure the gates are open” to applicants of all means that keeps him in close contact with donors during the admissions process. Those donors ensure that Harvard can fund its financial-aid program, he said.

Ruth J. Simmons, president of Prairie View A&M University, a historically black institution in Texas, was called to testify for Harvard about the benefits of diversity. Simmons, a former president of Brown University and Smith College, also defended the practice of giving admissions preferences to the children of alumni, or “legacies.”

“That is in keeping with the tradition that we have as institutions, where there’s a strong identity alumni have with their institutions,” she said.

Concern over legacy admissions and favoritism toward wealthy applicants is, of course, nothing new. But the trial laid bare the extent to which even institutions that prize diversity do so within clear boundaries.

“We are not trying to mirror the socioeconomic or income distribution of the United States,” said Rakesh Khurana, dean of Harvard College, the university’s undergraduate division.

Is it problematic to value certain personalities over others?

As part of its defense, Harvard’s lawyers walked admissions officials through real applications to show what they looked for and to convey just how brilliant, complex, and likeable their students are.

One interviewer described an applicant’s “fun, casual nature” and “understated maturity.” Another had “a very solid sense of self,” and a third was “bright and lively.” Harvard’s interviewer handbook instructed the thousands of alumni who meet with candidates to look for “outstanding intellectual ability” and “unusual effervescence.”

Again, a Harvard policy intended to preserve some latitude for individual judgment struck the plaintiff as opening the door to discrimination. Students for Fair Admissions lawyers tried to show that being quiet or shy worked against applicants — and that admissions officials associated those traits with students of Asian decent.

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?

They asked Fitzsimmons about rejected applicants who were described as “very quiet” and “quiet and strong.” Those applicants were Asian-American.

The organization also exhumed parts of a 1990 report by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which found that some Harvard officials described Asian-American applicants “as being quiet, shy, science/math-oriented, and hard workers.”

Fitzsimmons said that he had described applicants of all races as “quiet” at one point or another, and that he was not stereotyping Asian-Americans. Harvard lawyers noted that the 1990 report cleared the university of discrimination. Moreover, some of the extroverted applicants highlighted by the lawyers were Asian-American, and the admitted student who was into ballet was also described as “quiet.”

All the same, maybe just for good measure, this year’s admissions procedures include a new clause.

“Keep in mind that characteristics not always synonymous with extroversion are similarly valued,” the guideline says. “Applicants who seem to be particularly reflective, insightful, and/or dedicated should receive higher personal ratings as well.”

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.