What the Harvard Affirmative Action Victory Means for Students Who Face ‘Endemic Inequalities’ in K-12 Schools
Madison Trice, a Harvard student, expressed her joy after a federal judge ruled in favor of the university’s admissions policies, stating that they do not unfairly discriminate against Asian-American applicants. Trice believes that the consideration of race in admissions decisions is important for students like her who have faced racism and want to communicate their experiences and racial identities in their applications. She emphasized that any other outcome could have been harmful to black students with college ambitions, including herself.
Earlier on Tuesday, District Judge Allison Burroughs upheld Harvard’s admissions process, which takes into account various factors, including race. The judge rejected the argument made by the plaintiffs that the process discriminates against Asian-American applicants. The plaintiffs, represented by Students for Fair Admissions, claimed that Harvard’s admissions process had a racial quota that set higher standards for Asian-American students compared to applicants of other races.
The ruling in this high-profile legal battle has significant implications for colleges and universities across the nation as they strive to create racially diverse student bodies. It also affects high school students who are considering their chances of admission to various schools, including prestigious institutions like Harvard.
During the trial, Trice shared the essay she had written for her Harvard application, which highlighted her experiences of being bullied in high school due to her race and her journey towards self-acceptance. She argued that her mistreatment at school was closely tied to her racial identity.
Trice, who is majoring in government and expected to graduate in 2021, recounted several instances from her childhood that demonstrated the damaging effects of discrimination in the education system. For instance, she mentioned that she was only allowed to be enrolled in gifted and talented classes after her parents fought for it, despite her high academic performance. Trice echoed the sentiments of many students of color who face disparities in access to gifted programs. This issue was central to a heated debate in New York City regarding admissions to selective public schools.
In the 130-page ruling, Judge Burroughs acknowledged the importance of race-conscious admissions policies that align with Supreme Court precedent. She recognized that these policies contribute to the creation of diverse learning environments that promote scholarship, mutual respect, and understanding. However, she also acknowledged that Harvard’s admissions process is not flawless and recommended that the university establish clear guidelines and provide implicit bias training to admissions officers regarding the use of race.
Michaele Turnage Young, a senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, reflected on the ruling, stating that race-conscious college admissions are necessary to address the inequalities within the K-12 public school system. Students of color are more likely to attend high-poverty schools with less experienced teachers, fewer resources, and limited academic and extracurricular opportunities. Young believes that colleges and universities should have the ability to consider race as one of many factors in their admissions processes in order to counteract these systemic inequities.
Adan Acevedo, a Harvard graduate and co-president of the Harvard Latino Alumni Alliance, emphasized the importance of Harvard’s holistic admissions process for his own acceptance. Coming from an immigrant family that struggled to achieve the American Dream, Acevedo believes that this comprehensive approach to admissions provides individuals like him with a better chance at success.
In a written correspondence, Larry Bacow, the President of Harvard, expressed his belief that the recent ruling was a triumph for promoting diversity within the campus community. Bacow emphasized that the consideration of race, along with other factors, helps them achieve their objective of cultivating a diverse student body that enhances the educational experience of all students. He further underscored the significance of diversity and its representation in the world.
The response from groups representing Asian-American students varied on Tuesday. The Asian American Coalition for Education, a group that supported the federal complaint against Harvard, criticized the decision as regressive, citing overwhelming evidence of discriminatory practices against Asian-Americans in the university’s admissions process. The group asserted that the ruling demonstrates the court’s biased alignment with the defendant, based on political correctness and elitist arrogance.
Conversely, John Yang, the president and executive director of the civil rights organization Asian Americans Advancing Justice, praised the judge’s decision, arguing that Asian Americans benefit from affirmative action policies as they protect against discrimination. He contended that race-conscious policies enable all applicants, especially Asian-Americans, to share their complete stories, including the challenges and diverse backgrounds they have encountered.
Harvard graduate Jeannie Park, who is also the president of the Harvard Asian American Alumni Alliance, echoed a similar sentiment. She emphasized that race is an inseparable aspect of many individuals’ identities and life experiences. According to Park, omitting race would prevent applicants from fully presenting themselves during the admissions process.
Despite this recent ruling, Harvard may still face further legal challenges. Many see this case as a potential opportunity for the Supreme Court to address the legality of affirmative action. Edward Blum, President of Students for Fair Admissions, a prominent opponent of affirmative action, expressed his disappointment with the ruling and intends to appeal. He claimed that the evidence presented during the trial unequivocally demonstrated Harvard’s systematic discrimination against Asian-American applicants.
However, Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense and Educational Fund, argued that the facts surrounding the Harvard case are substantial and difficult to dispute, even on appeal.
In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas’ admissions policy, which takes race into account, in a 4-3 decision. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case. Ifill mentioned that the question of affirmative action has consistently stirred legal debates over the past three decades but has survived every challenge brought before the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, affirmative action may face stronger opposition at the Supreme Court this time. The court’s conservative majority, which formed after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, could sway the final decision.
In light of these developments, President Trump has rescinded guidance on affirmative action in college admissions, signaling the possibility of a new Supreme Court challenge.
Stay informed with stories like these by subscribing to newsletter.
