Harvard on trial: Applicants on special list receive stronger consideration for admission

PRIVILEGE HAS its benefits as the trial accusing Harvard of anti-Asian bias revealed what was widely suspected; Harvard opens its gates wide if you've got a rich daddy.

The lawyers for Students for Fair Admissions -- the anti-affirmative action group that filed the lawsuit contending that Harvard limits its Asian admissions -- continued to question Harvard's Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons about the admission process at the elite Ivy League school.

One of the plaintiff's attorney, John M Hughes, tried to show that Harvard favors the rich and well-connected by introducing some internal emails.

Hughes asked Fitzsimmons about the so-called "Dean's Interest List" of students recommended or related to rich donors. The recommended students received scores of 1 or 2, which indicated that they were to be given special consideration.

Fitzsimmons admitted in pre-trial testimony that greater “financial contribution([s)” can lead to higher ratings for individual applicants.

The dean defended Harvard's special treatment of applicants with donor ties as "important for the long-term strength of the institution." He noted the tactic helps to secure funding for scholarships, among other things.

Hughes continued to question Fitzsimmons about the 2013 report by the U.S. Dept. of Education that the school's admissions process produces "negative effects" for Asian Americans. The report gave several recommendations to make its admission process more transparent and fair. The dean's answers seemed to indicate that the university failed to implement those recommendations.

Guided by the questions by Harvard's attorney, Fitzsimmons gave more details about the school's admissions procedure.  dove further into the details of Harvard's admissions process, noting the school pursues three main objectives: "truly exceptional students," "diversity of all types," and "no more students than beds."

The trail, which questions the use of race in evaluating applicants, is expected to last three weeks and through appeals, will likely wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court and could impact affirmative action programs in education and employment.

_______________________________________________________________________________