By
Anemona Hartocollis
A federal judge on Tuesday rejected claims that Harvard had intentionally discriminated against Asian-Americans in admissions, saying that the university had a right to choose a diverse class.
The challenge to the university’s admissions process came from a group hoping to overturn a longstanding Supreme Court precedent that allows race to be considered as one factor among many, but prohibits universities from using quotas in admissions.
The judge, Allison Burroughs of Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts, rejected the argument that Harvard was using affirmative action as a weapon against some races and a boon to others, and said that the university met the strict constitutional standard for considering race in its admissions process.
In her decision, Judge Burroughs gave an eloquent defense of the benefits of diversity, and said that while the time might come when it would be possible to look beyond race in college admissions, that time was not yet here.
Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit representing a group of Asian-American students who were rejected by Harvard, accused the college of violating federal civil rights law by holding Asian-Americans to a higher standard. A judge ruled in Harvard’s favor.
“For purposes of this case, at least for now, ensuring diversity at Harvard relies, in part, on race conscious admissions,” the judge said.
The plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit representing a group of Asian-American students rejected by Harvard, had accused the college of violating federal civil rights law by holding Asian-Americans, who as a group get better test scores and grades than other races, to a higher standard.
The three-week trial last October set off a national discussion about the role of race and ethnicity in college admissions. It led to sometimes bitter debate over whether the college admissions system was a beacon of meritocracy or a system that privileged some groups — like the children of alumni, wealthy donors and certain minorities — while penalizing others.
Students for Fair Admissions made four interrelated claims: that Harvard intentionally discriminated against Asian-Americans, that it used race as a predominant factor in admissions decisions, that it racially balanced its classes, and that it had considered applicants’ race without first exhausting race-neutral alternatives to create diversity.
Judge Burroughs cleared the university of all four claims, saying that while Harvard’s admissions process was “not perfect,” the court would not tear down “a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster.”
