DOJ asks court to overturn Harvard admissions ruling

Asian American students were on both sides of the affirmative action case.

The Trump administration is taking a more active role in the Harvard admissions court case by asking the court to overturn the judge's decision.

The Department of Justice Monday filed an amicus brief in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In its amicus brief, the United States explains that Harvard’s expansive use of race in its admissions process violates federal civil-rights law and Supreme Court precedent.

“Race discrimination hurts people and is never benign,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division. “Unconstitutionally partitioning Americans into racial and ethnic blocs harms all involved by fostering stereotypes, bitterness, and division among the American people. The Department of Justice will continue to fight against illegal race discrimination.”

The DOJ action follows a similar request last week by Students for Fair Admissions. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said in a brief filed with the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Harvard “imposes a racial penalty on Asian American applicants” and that the school's “transparent regime of racial balancing flagrantly violates settled law.”

As a condition of receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer funding every year, Harvard expressly agrees to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a cornerstone civil-rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. In 2017, the Department opened a Title VI investigation into Harvard’s admissions process after a complaint was filed by more than 60 Asian-American organizations. That investigation remains underway.

In this case, Students for Fair Admissions, an organization headed by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, alleged that Harvard College intentionally discriminates against Asian American applicants when making admissions decisions, in violation of Title VI. 

Plaintiffs claimed that Harvard's admission criteria bypassed some Asian American applicants who had high test scores in favor of students with lower scores.

During the 2018 trial, none of the Asian American plaintiffs chose not to testify while several students defended Harvard's affirmative action policy.

The district judge denied Harvard’s attempts to dismiss the lawsuit, and the case proceeded to a three-week trial in the fall of 2018.

Plaintiffs believe that although the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds may consider applicants’ race in certain limited circumstances, the district court’s factual findings demonstrated that Harvard’s use of race is anything but limited. 

The district court concluded that “more than one third of the admitted Hispanics and more than half of the admitted African Americans, would most likely not be admitted in the absence of Harvard’s race-conscious admissions process.” These applicants are allegedly taking the place of well-qualified Asian American applicants, contend Students for Fair Admission attorneys.

The district court concluded that Harvard’s use of race in the admissions process does not discriminate against Asian Americans and did not violate federal law or Supreme Court precedent.

In her 130-page opinion, Judge Allison Burroughs stressed that race-conscious admissions hold "an important place in society and help ensure that colleges and universities can offer a diverse atmosphere that fosters learning, improves scholarship, and encourages mutual respect and understanding."

The DOJ’s amicus brief alleges that the evidence at trial showed “that Harvard actively engages in racial balancing that Supreme Court precedent flatly forbids.” The evidence also demonstrated that Harvard’s admissions officers consistently score Asian American applicants lower on the so-called “personal rating.” 

“In other words,” the brief alleges, “Harvard’s admissions officers tended to evaluate Asian Americans, as compared to members of other racial groups, as having less integrity, being less confident, constituting less-qualified leaders, and so on.” “That disparity,” the brief points out, “is undisputed, and explained.” For these and other reasons, the DOJ urged the appellate court to reverse the district court’s judgment.

The Harvard case exposed the rift in the Asian American community over affirmative action. The plaintiffs were newer immigrants unaware of the historical nature of the race-based policy. Pitted against them are Asian American groups who are veterans of the civil rights struggle of minorities. 

Both Harvard and the plaintiffs say, if necessary, they will appeal the case all the way to the US Supreme Court.