Affirmative actions have elicited debate since their establishment in 1961, with Harvard University being subjected to one of the most recent civil lawsuits. Harvard University was accused of discriminating against Asian-America students using certain affirmative action policies, thereby violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The university was sued by the Students for Fair Admission and the case provides a basis for understanding similar future cases. Forthwith is a summary of the arguments of both sides of the case, and opinion thereof.
The first argument presented by the Students for Fair Admissions, henceforth referred to as SFFA, claimed that Harvard University intentionally discriminated against Asian-American applicants. One of the main assertions herein is that Harvard's selection criteria are more subjective than necessary. By quoting a quota system that had been instituted in the 1920s to limit admission of Jews into Harvard's student’s body, SFFA implies that Harvard’s admission policy retains a similar philosophy. Moreover, there is evidence from several studies such as the Espenshade-Radford study, which indicate that Asian Americans are significantly less likely to be admitted to Harvard that other racial groups. SFFA also notes that Harvard's admission traits have remained constant despite fluctuating application rates. Interestingly, Caucasians have a higher probability of joining Harvard than Asian-Americans. Consequently, SFFA asserted that the personal ratings for Asian Americans are usually lower than other races despite similarity and equality in qualifications; hence Harvard’s admission policy is racially discriminative. The policy therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In response, Harvard University emphasizes on the inclusivity of its admission policy. The admission policy is specifically designed to ensure that an equal opportunity is given to all students including and especially those who are economically, racially or ethically disadvantaged. Harvard also debunks the assumption that a 1920s policy could still be influencing the current admission policy. Harvard continues to assert its right to academic freedom enshrined in the First Amendment, allowing it the liberty to determine which students join the institution. Each person is also considered a whole person, hence the admission policy does not admit based on monolithic groupings such as “Asians.”
SFFAs second argument focused on the statistical proof of the quota system that ensures that it facilitates racial balancing in the University's admissions. Statistical evidence was provided to indicate the minimal change in Asian American admissions compared to those of other races. The Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) ruled that quotas are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. However, race remains an important factor in higher education admission to date in promoting diversity in institutions.
Harvard began its argument against the racial balancing claim by reasserting its commitment to diversity promotion in its student body. Hence, the admission criteria are designed to achieve that goal. Harvard noted that it is impossible to accept all qualified applicants equitably when race is one of the factors that must be considered to attain a prescribed ideal balance in its critical mass. Harvard maintains a process that is fair and competitive for all kinds of diverse learners including any other categories that are disadvantaged. Harvard's submission also cited Smith v. University of Washington Law School (9th Cir., 2004) which held that diversity and inclusivity must be encouraged to create a dynamic educational environment.
Thirdly, SFFA argued that Harvard used race for other purposes other than the achievement of diversity and critical mass as claimed. SFFA contends that Harvard’s policy fails to attain diversity and is not aimed at attaining a critical mass implying that it must be used for some other purpose, hence the terms “plus factor.” SFFA further accuses Harvard of insisting that a criterion that includes racial preferences is necessary in perpetuity, justifying its use even when it is or will no longer be necessary, such as when the University has attained diversity.
Harvard countered the third accusation by stating that all students are given a fair chance for admission, and race is only one factor among many that are considered. Harvard also confirmed the creation of the Smith Committee tasked with the responsibility of reevaluating its critical mass every five years, implying that Harvard takes the concept of critical mass seriously. Harvard promotes the belief that diversity in the students’ body is essential in the educational processes. Moreover, Harvard maintains that diversity is also present within the Asian American population hence diversity as a criterion in admissions is a term that has even more complex implications than argued by SFFA.
In examining the arguments put forth by both sides, it cannot be sufficiently claimed that merely admitting fewer Asian Americans that other races is tantamount to racial discrimination. As argued by Harvard, it is necessary to maintain diversity in the institution’s student’s body yet that diversity must be equitable to all groups, not just the disadvantaged groups. SFFA also singles out race as a main factor in Harvard's affirmative action policy, ignoring all other dynamics that may have contributed to the results found in the statistical analysis.
In summary, Harvard won the case as expected and as instrumental in setting precedence on the handling of Affirmative Action policies. In open-enrollment institutions, racial considerations are rarely ever used. However, higher education institutions must do whatever is necessary to eliminate the possibility of discrimination. For instance, establishing a sponsorship fund for those with economic disadvantage could facilitate the admission of applicants from diverse races who may have been barred by financial challenges. Such a measure would ensure that diversity is attained not only racially, but also in all other areas.
