Harvard diversity vs. discrimination

By Jason Lim

As a part of its larger campaign arguing that the consideration of race in the university admissions process violates the Equal Protection Clause, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard in 2014 claiming the university discriminates against Asian-Americans. In her Oct. 1 ruling, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs found in Harvard's favor.

Following the ruling, in his letter to students and alumni's, Harvard President Lawrence S. Bacow quoted the following passage from Burrough's decision: "For purposes of this case, at least for now, ensuring diversity at Harvard relies, in part, on race conscious admissions. Harvard's admission program passes constitutional muster in that it satisfies the dictates of strict scrutiny … 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."

Harvard was found not guilty on all four counts that were brought by SFFA. These include "intentional discrimination against Asian-Americans, engaging in racial balancing, using race as a determinative factor in admissions decisions, and inadequately exploring race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity."

The legal backdrop of this trial is that Supreme Court rulings dating to the 1970s ban "racial balancing" and racial quotas in college admissions. But the court also has said schools may use an applicant's race as a "plus factor" so long as it isn't the determining one.

After peeling off all the legal jargon and layers, the fight came down to one foundational question: did Harvard use race as a determinant factor to artificially keep the Asian student population below a certain threshold to support racial balancing, all of which are prohibited per above. The answer, according to Judge Burroughs, was a no.

Burroughs sided with the argument that, according to Bacow, "Harvard College's admissions process aims to evaluate each individual as a whole person. The consideration of race, alongside many other factors, helps us achieve our goal of creating a diverse student body that enriches the education of every student. Everyone admitted to Harvard College has something unique to offer our community, and today we reaffirm the importance of diversity ― and everything it represents to the world."

On the other side of the scale, however, this long judicial fight partially lifted the covers of Harvard's admissions process and revealed a few disturbing facts. One, Asian applicants needed to score about 140 points higher on the SATs than white applicants to be accepted.

Two, the percentage of Asian students accepted at Harvard hovered between 15 percent and 20 percent from the early 1990s to 2013, despite the increase of academically qualified Asian applicants; during the same time frame, the percentage of Asian students at Caltech, whose admissions decisions are race-blind, rose from 25 percent to 43 percent.

Three, Asian applicants scored consistently lower on personal ratings, which assigned numerical scores to ambiguous and subjective qualities such as likeability, humor and grit.

In a report that SFFA included, Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke University economist, posits that after narrowing down applicants to those with the strongest objective academic qualifications, Asian-Americans were far more likely than blacks or Hispanics to receive a low personality score from admissions officers.

The analysis juxtaposes the Asian-Americans' personality scores from admissions officers with the relatively high personality ratings given by alumni interviewers, as well as with the relatively positive feedback provided to Harvard by applicants' teachers and counselors, for those same students.

Arcidiacono concludes that this apparent personality-score phenomenon leads to what he describes as "the Asian-American penalty"; if that so-called penalty were removed, he contends, Asian-Americans' admission rate would increase from 5.2 percent to 19.2 percent."

None of these are smoking guns that show unequivocally that Harvard intentionally discriminates against Asian students in its admission decisions. However, some of the processes that it put into place in its "holistic" admissions policy had the effect of doing exactly that.

The way I read this, when you get down to it, what Judge Burroughs basically said was that it was OK for Harvard to de facto discriminate against Asians as along as it serves the greater good of "diversity." Just don't make the discrimination blatant and keep it within the bounds of case law.

It boils down to racial diversity vs. racial discrimination. To put it bluntly, does diversity's positive social value (with blacks and Hispanics being the primary beneficiaries) outweigh the inherent unfairness of racial discrimination (with Asians being the primary victims)? Do the ends justify the means?

I don't know. I don't know mostly because I don't know how to measure the value of diversity. It's an abstract concept that really cannot be measured in any meaningful way, unlike discrimination that can be statistically quantified over time.

At the same time, just because it can't be measured doesn't mean it's not a worthy goal. But I guess we will know soon enough what the U.S. Supreme Court thinks. SFFA says it will appeal the ruling all the way to the end.

Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture.