DOJ Attacks Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions Policy
Under the direction of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Justice Department said Thursday that Harvard's race-conscious admissions process "significantly disadvantages Asian-American applicants." Harvard's lawyers at WilmerHale dispute this, and they argue admissions officers "carefully consider each applicant in his or her entirety."
August 30, 2018 at 10:48 AM
5 minute read
Harvard College's use of race in its admissions policies unconstitutionally discriminates against Asian-American student applicants, the U.S. Justice Department said Thursday as the government embarked on a new litigation stance under the leadership of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
The Justice Department, filing a statement of interest in the Massachusetts case Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, said the evidence “demonstrates that Harvard's race-based admissions process significantly disadvantages Asian-American applicants compared to applicants of other racial groups—including both white applicants and applicants from other racial minority groups.”
The government accused Harvard of having “no meaningful criteria to cabin its use of race; uses a vague 'personal rating' that harms Asian-American applicants' chances for admission and may be infected with racial bias; engages in unlawful racial balancing; and has never seriously considered race-neutral alternatives in its more than 45 years of using race to make admissions decisions.”
Harvard's lawyers at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, led by partner Seth Waxman in Washington, contend the university does not discriminate against Asian-American students.
“The evidence fails to show—let alone beyond dispute—that Harvard could achieve its educational objectives without considering race,” Waxman wrote in a brief in July. He continued: “Harvard's conclusions—that race-neutral alternatives would not allow it to achieve the educational benefits of diversity that are required to meet its pedagogical goals—are straightforward and unassailable.”
Harvard's admissions officers “carefully consider each applicant in his or her entirety, seeking a full picture of the whole person in context,” wrote Harvard's lawyers, who also include Wilmer partners Debo Adegbile and William Lee.
The government's brief was filed by the Justice Department's civil rights division, led by an acting leader, John Gore, a former Jones Day partner who joined the Trump administration last year. The Trump administration's civil rights nominee, Eric Dreiband, currently a Jones Day partner, is awaiting Senate confirmation. The United States has a pending independent Title VI investigation into whether Harvard's admissions policy is discriminatory, the government said in a court filing Thursday.
“No American should be denied admission to school because of their race. As a recipient of taxpayer dollars, Harvard has a responsibility to conduct its admissions policy without racial discrimination by using meaningful admissions criteria that meet lawful requirements,” Sessions said in a statement Thursday. “The Department of Justice has the responsibility to protect the civil rights of the American people. This case is significant because the admissions policies at our colleges and universities are important and must be conducted lawfully.”
Students for Fair Admissions, a group of plaintiffs brought together by Edward Blum of the Center for Fair Representation, filed its lawsuit in 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Harvard has filed a motion for summary judgment in its favor, a motion which the Justice Department has now officially opposed. The law firm Consovoy McCarthy Park represents the student group.
A trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 15.
Blum also is the architect of a second federal lawsuit challenging the use of race in the admissions policies of the University of North Carolina.
The U.S. Supreme Court most recently upheld the use of race in the admissions policies of the University of Texas at Austin. The high court in a series of decisions has held that the use of race must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest and no race neutral alternatives exist. In the case of higher education, the court has said, diversity is a compelling interest.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in support of Harvard on Thursday.
“While the DOJ's brief does not challenge Supreme Court precedent granting universities the right to freely select their own student body—presumably because it cannot do so at this stage of the litigation—the Trump administration has advocated for 'race-blind' policies, which Harvard and virtually all other universities have found are demonstrably insufficient to achieve meaningful diversity, given the reality of historic and continuing racial discrimination in this country,” the ACLU said in a statement.
Prohibiting any consideration of race as part of a “holistic” admissions review “would undermine equality, impede integration and inclusion, and deny the relevance of applicants' individual experiences of race to the diversity of a student body,” ACLU lawyers wrote in their friend-of-the-court brief.
We've posted the Justice Department's statement of interest below:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided 5th Circuit Shoots Down Nasdaq Diversity Rules
Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
5 minute readLawyers, Law Groups Oppose Proposal to Require Court Approval for Amicus Briefs
9th Circuit Judges Weigh if Section 230 Shields Grindr From Defective Design Claims
Trending Stories
- 1Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 2Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 3Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 4Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
- 5In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250