ACE and 40 other associations
submitted an amicus brief yesterday in support of Harvard’s “holistic”
admissions process and its consideration of race and ethnicity when reviewing
applications for undergraduate admission.
The trial court’s decision in
Harvard’s favor in the high-profile case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.
v. Harvard is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. The associations are asking the appeals court
not to “upset decades of Supreme Court precedent that has approved of holistic
and individualized admissions processes” in overturning the lower court’s
decision.
The U.S. District Court in
Massachusetts ruled
last October that Harvard does not discriminate against Asian American
applicants, reaffirming the importance of race-conscious admissions in helping
construct diverse campuses. While Judge Alison Burroughs wrote that the Harvard
admissions process was not perfect, she said that “the court will not dismantle
a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster, solely
because it could do better.”
Students for Fair Admissions
(SFFA) immediately appealed the decision. Briefing by the parties, as well as by amici
supporting the parties, will be completed in early
June.
SFFA alleged in its complaint,
first filed in 2014, that Harvard discriminates against Asian American students
in its admissions processes. Edward Blum, SFFA’s president, is the architect
and driving force behind this lawsuit, and other cases challenging
race-conscious admissions practices at colleges and universities, including the
unsuccessful attempt in Fisher v. University of Texas to eliminate the
use of race as one of many factors in admissions. Blum created SFFA, an
organization that purports to work on behalf of Asian-Americans.
ACE President Ted Mitchell said in
a statement
at the time of the district court ruling that it “unambiguously respects more
than four decades of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Finding that 'Harvard's
interest in student body diversity is substantial and compelling,' the court
emphasized that the university has followed the high court's standard that race
and ethnicity can be considered within a narrowly tailored framework as one
factor in a holistic admissions review."
Mitchell noted that the ruling was
“especially gratifying because it occurs against a backdrop of continuing
attacks on what remains the settled law of the land in this area."
ACE’s amicus brief emphasizes
that diversity, including racial diversity, advances learning, enriches campus
environments, and prepares students to thrive in an increasingly diverse
workforce and society. It also underscores that the Supreme Court permits
colleges and universities to pursue the version of diversity that best suits
their mission and goals, including the limited consideration of race.
The court’s most recent ruling on
the issue came in 2016, in Fisher
II v. the University of Texas at Austin. This
decision reaffirmed the constitutionality of considering race as one factor in
a holistic admissions review and underscored the autonomy U.S. colleges and
universities have to define the intangible characteristics, like student body
diversity, that are central to each institution's identity and educational
mission.
The Harvard case may ultimately
reach the Supreme Court, putting the issue of race-conscious admissions back in
front of the justices for the fifth time since 1978, and before a court that
has added Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh since it last took up the issue of
diversity in college admissions.
For more background and ACE’s work
on the case, click
here.