U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the District of Massachusetts gave Harvard University's admission processes an "A" grade, finding the school's consideration of race and personal traits ensures a diverse student body.

After a three-week bench trial, Burroughs found for the Ivy League college, finding its affirmative-action techniques pass the constitutional test and holds an important place in society.

"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," Burroughs wrote. "They will have the opportunity to know and understand one another beyond race, as whole individuals with unique histories and experiences."

|

Click here to read the full ruling

Plaintiff, nonprofit group Students for Fair Admissions Inc. and its chief Edward Blum, had alleged the president and fellows of Harvard College violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by limiting the number of Asian American applicants accepted.

"We believe that the documents, emails, data analysis and depositions SFFA presented at trial compellingly revealed Harvard's systematic discrimination against Asian-American applicants," Blum said in a statement after the ruling. "SFFA will appeal this decision to the First Court of Appeals and, if necessary, to the U.S Supreme Court."

|

'Important place in society'

Burroughs disagreed with plaintiff arguments. The judge wrote that her ruling might not need to stand forever, but was crucial for now.

"It is this, at Harvard and elsewhere that will move us, one day, to the point where we see that race is a fact, but not the defining fact and not the fact that tells us what is important, but we are not there yet," Burroughs wrote. "Until we are, 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."

The judge also said Harvard's process is not perfect. She said it could benefit from implicit-bias training for admissions officers, maintaining clear guidelines developed during this litigation to focus on the use of race in the admissions process, monitoring admissions officers, and making them aware of any significant race-related statistical disparities in the rating process.

The case was magnetic, attracting amicus briefs from dozens of interested parties on either side.

The U.S. Department of Justice backed the plaintiff, claiming that "Harvard provides no meaningful criteria to cabin its use of race," while prominent civil rights groups like the ACLU jumped to Harvard's defense.

The dispute is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Plaintiff attorney William S. Consovoy has worked on the case since its 2014 inception, with Patrick Strawbridge at Consovoy McCarthy. They enlisted a larger team at trial, including Chicago-based Bartlit Beck attorneys Adam K. Mortara and John M. Hughes, and a network of conservative legal scholars from the Federalist Society.

Veteran litigators William Lee and Seth Waxman of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr defended Harvard's race-conscious policies.

Mortara and Hughes during closing arguments highlighted that Asian American applicants received lower personal ratings than other hopefuls—something, they argued, that stemmed from admissions officers' unconscious bias. But they didn't present any Asian American witnesses who could testify to having been wrongly denied admission.

Lee and Waxman argued that testimony showed admissions officers don't consider race when assigning personal ratings and stressed that diversity was crucial to Harvard, which considers race as one of many factors.

Elsewhere in the District of Massachusetts, a similar lawsuit against the fellows of Harvard and the Harvard Law Review has flopped. In it, two nonprofit organizations claimed affirmative-action policies meant white men faced discrimination, as more consideration went to women and ethnic minorities. But a federal judge dismissed the case without prejudice, ruling that complaint's claims of discrimination were too vague.