A federal judge on Tuesday rejected claims that Harvard had intentionally discriminated against Asian-Americans applicants, in a closely watched case that had presented one of the biggest legal challenges to affirmative action in years.
The challenge came from a group hoping to overturn a longstanding Supreme Court precedent that allows race to be considered as one factor among many in the admissions process, but prohibits universities from using racial quotas. The group argued that Harvard’s practices had benefited black and Hispanic students at the expense of another minority group, in a strategic reversal of past affirmative action lawsuits in which the plaintiffs denounced a perceived unfairness to white students.
The judge, Allison Burroughs of Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts, rejected the argument that Harvard was using affirmative action as a weapon against some races and a boon to others, and said that the university met the strict constitutional standard for considering race in its admissions process.
In her decision, Judge Burroughs defended the benefits of diversity, and said that while the time might come when it would be possible to look beyond race in college admissions, that time was not yet here.
“The rich diversity at Harvard and other colleges and universities and the benefits that flow from that diversity,” she added, “will foster the tolerance, acceptance and understanding that will ultimately make race conscious admissions obsolete.”
The case drew widespread scrutiny, from dozens of other top-ranked colleges that use Harvard’s race-conscious admission policies as a model, and expressed their support in court filings, and from the Justice Department, which backed the plaintiffs and is pursuing its own investigation of Harvard’s admissions.
[Read our explainer on the Harvard affirmative action lawsuit.]
The plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit representing a group of Asian-American students rejected by Harvard, had accused the college of violating federal civil rights law by holding Asian-Americans, who as a group get better test scores and grades than other races, to a higher standard.
The three-week trial last October set off a national discussion about the role of race and ethnicity in college admissions. It led to sometimes bitter debate over whether the college admissions system was a beacon of meritocracy or a system that privileged some groups — like the children of alumni, wealthy donors and certain minorities — while penalizing others.
Students for Fair Admissions made four interrelated claims: that Harvard intentionally discriminated against Asian-Americans, that it used race as a predominant factor in admissions decisions, that it racially balanced its classes, and that it had considered applicants’ race without first exhausting race-neutral alternatives to create diversity.
Judge Burroughs cleared the university of all four claims, saying that while Harvard’s admissions process was “not perfect,” the court would not tear down “a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster.”
[Where does affirmative action leave Asian-Americans?]
Federal Judge Reggie Walton Condemned Trump’s Comments About Judge Juan Merchan On CNN