A Federal Judge Just Ruled That Harvard Admissions Don’t Discriminate Against Asian American Students

Charles Krupa/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday ruled that Harvard University did not discriminate against Asian American students, rebuffing for now a challenge to the use of race in university admissions that could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

In a 130-page ruling, US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs concluded that Harvard’s admissions process “passes constitutional muster” in using race as one factor in determining how it admits students to the university. The court found no evidence of “any racial animus or conscious prejudice against Asian Americans.” 

The decision dealt a blow to Students for Fair Admissions, a group of Asian American students who sued Harvard in 2014. The case represented a pivot in challenging affirmative action that pitted one minority group against others. In this case, the group’s attorneys argued that Harvard effectively created a quota for how many Asian students the university would admit and penalized Asian applicants by holding them to a higher standard while giving preference to black and Hispanic students. An analysis of Harvard’s student records conducted by Students for Fair Admissions concluded that while Asian applicants scored higher in academic and extracurricular measures than their peers, they received lower ratings on more subjective criteria like a “personality rating.” The court found that the university did not impose “racial quotas or otherwise engaged in impermissible racial balancing.”

“The students who are admitted to Harvard and choose to attend will live and learn surrounded by all sorts of people, with all sorts of experiences, beliefs and talents. They will have the opportunity to know and understand one another beyond race, as whole individuals with unique histories and experiences,” Judge Burroughs concluded. Until race is no longer considered a defining feature in a person’s life, “race conscious admissions programs that survive strict scrutiny will have 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.”

Students for Fair Admissions is led by activist Edward Blum, a longtime opponent of racial preferences who was behind a 2016 Supreme Court challenge to the use of race in college admissions at the University of Texas at Austin. In that case, involving a white student named Abigail Fisher, the Supreme Court upheld the university’s admissions process.

Tuesday’s ruling is just the opening salvo. Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions, noted in a statement that the group was “disappointed that the court has upheld Harvard’s discriminatory admissions policies” and planned to appeal Burrough’s decision. 

Read the court’s opinion below: 

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate