US judge rejects claim Harvard discriminates against Asian-American applicants – World

The Harvard University undergraduate admission program does not discriminate against Asian-American applicants, a federal judge ruled Tuesday, rejecting a lawsuit filed by opponents of affirmative action and backed by the Trump administration.

The lawsuit was filed by a group with the hope of eventually canceling the precedents of the United States Supreme Court that allow universities to consider race as a factor in admissions, as long as the fees are not involved.

The US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston concluded that the Harvard program survived strict legal scrutiny and increased the interest of the Ivy League in having a diverse student body.

"The court will not dismantle a very good admissions program that approves the constitutional concentration, just because it could do better," Burroughs, appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote in a 130-page decision.

Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a group founded by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum, accused Harvard of participating in an illegal racial balance.

SFFA said Harvard policies limited Asian-Americans to no more than 20 percent of the incoming classes, and left them less likely to be admitted than white, black and Hispanic applicants with comparable qualifications.

Blum said SFFA was disappointed with Burroughs' decision, will ask the federal court of appeals in Boston to revoke it and, if necessary, seek the review of the Supreme Court.

"The documents, emails, data analysis and statements that SFFA presented at the trial convincingly revealed Harvard's systematic discrimination against Asian-American applicants," he said.

Harvard did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Burroughs ruled almost a year after a jury trial.

If the case finally reaches the Supreme Court, that body, which now has a conservative majority of five members, could use it to prohibit or more strictly restrict affirmative action in college admissions.

The court has allowed affirmative action in several decisions, including its historic ruling of 1978 in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, who allowed race to be considered in college admissions.

& # 39; not yet & # 39;

SFFA had argued that while Harvard Asian-American applicants often obtained better results in academic measures, stereotypes caused many to receive low scores on personal grades.

Those qualifications are designed to reflect the assessments of admission officers on how applicants can contribute to the Harvard community.

Harvard denied the charge, saying that his use of race in admissions was not a factor in personal qualifications.

The United States Department of Justice sided with SFFA, saying that Harvard policy significantly hurt Asian-Americans, and that the university had not seriously considered neutral admission approaches to the breed.

He has also investigated whether another Ivy League school, Yale University, also discriminates against Asian Americans.

Burroughs agreed with Harvard that the university did not have "viable and neutral alternatives to the race" to ensure a diverse student body and at the same time preserve its high academic standards.

He also rejected the argument that Harvard's undergraduate admissions were the functional equivalent of the fees or racial balance that the Supreme Court has rejected.

Burroughs said the Harvard program was not perfect, and that the school could improve bias training for admission officers, maintain clear guidelines on the use of race in admissions and do a better job of pointing out disparities related to Race in your grades.

He concluded by pointing out the prediction of Supreme Court Judge Sandra Day O & # 39; Connor in a 2003 decision confirming an affirmative action program at the University of Michigan that such policies would probably not be necessary within 25 years. That prediction has often been criticized by conservatives.

Diversity at Harvard and other schools "will foster tolerance, acceptance and understanding that will ultimately make race-conscious admissions obsolete," Burroughs wrote.

She said that people will eventually see race as "a fact, but not the defining fact and not the fact that tells us what is important, but we are not there yet. Until we are, race-conscious admission programs who survive strict scrutiny will have an important place in society. "