Harvard's admissions' ruling appealed

Asian American students demonstrated in favor of Harvard's admission process. 

It was no surprise that just days after a federal judge ruled that Harvard's admissions process did not discriminate against Asian American applicants, his ruling was appealed.
US District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs on Oct. 1 ruled that while Harvard could improve its admissions process with more training and monitoring, it is “very fine,’’ legally sound, and uses race only in a narrow way.

Students for Fair Admissions is appealing to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, according to a court filing.

Edward Blum, president of the group, said in statement, “Students for Fair Admissions looks forward to making our appeal to the US First Circuit Court of Appeals and, if necessary, to the US Supreme Court.’’

William F. Lee ’72 — the lead trial lawyer for Harvard and the senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation, the University’s highest governing body — said that Harvard will “vigorously” defend Burrough’s decision.

“The Court’s ruling that Harvard does not discriminate on the basis of race in its admissions process, and that Harvard’s pursuit of the diverse student body central to its educational mission is lawful, was very gratifying and provides a clear path forward to resolve this important case,” Lee said in a statement. “Harvard will vigorously defend the Court’s decision in this case.”

“Throughout this trial and after a careful review of all exhibits and written submissions, there is no evidence of any racial animus whatsoever or intentional discrimination on the part of Harvard beyond its use of a race conscious admissions policy, nor is there any evidence that any particular admissions decision was negatively affected by Asian American identity,’’ wrote Burroughs in her 130-page ruling.

The ruling came nearly a year after the trial that pitted Harvard against Students for Fair Admissions. Burroughs said the plaintiff, “did not present a single admissions file that reflected any discriminatory animus, or even an application of an Asian American who it contended should have or would have been admitted absent an unfairly deflated personal rating.’’

"Blum’s cynical attempt to use members of the Asian American community seeks to pit people of color against one another," wrote the ACLU, which filed a friend of the court brief in the case.

If Blum gets his wish, statistical projections show that white applicants will be the primary beneficiaries. Not talking about race doesn’t erase discrimination; it reinforces the privileges of white applicants by ignoring the ways in which deep-seeded structural racial inequality impacts individualsm, contends the ACLU.It is Blum's intention to appeal the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where he hopes its conservative majority will rule any admissions process that uses race as one of its factors.

"Affirmative action" was signed into law by President John F. Kennedy through executive order. Universities use race as a factor in the admissions process because for centuries, race was used against certain groups of people to deny them equal opportunity to study and graduate from elite institutions such as Harvard.

In an earlier case filed by Blum's group, Fisher v. University of Texas, the Supreme Court allowed race to be used as a factor in admissions at the University of Texas, as long as it is not the only factor used in deciding who gets into that school.

If the reconstituted Supreme Court, heavily weighted by extreme conservatives because of appointments made by Donald Trump, rules against Harvard, it could dismantle the  admissions processes  of schools throughout the country and hiring practices by government  agencies and private businesses.

_______________________________________________________________________