The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Harvard, the crème de la crème of Ivy League education, has been proudly engaging in racial discrimination — in 2020.

Harvard has a sordid history of employing and supporting racists and engaging in antisemitic limitations on the admission of Jews. But this article isn't about the past; it is about present-day discrimination of a different group of Harvard-hated students: Asians.

Asians have had their share of discrimination in American history, recall the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Japanese internment camps as examples. But the Asian U.S. community has proven themselves to be resilient and forward-looking, and they have effectively jumped over the hurdles thrown in their path. They were prospering in the United States in the '70s and '80s. By the late 20th century, Asians were succeeding so well at universities that the race bigots in charge of higher-education felt the need to pull Asians back — enter: Asian quotas.

Harvard, a haven for those with a leftist superiority complex, was happy to join in on the anti-Asian festivities.

Harvard has been on a mission to maintain an intentionally-designed racial balance at their university. Harvard has been meticulously crafting the racial makeup of their classes, making sure that a certain number of Black and Hispanic students are always represented, while simultaneously ensuring that Asians are not overrepresented.

According to a DOJ brief that was filed last week in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, "Harvard's close attention to its racial composition has produced a remarkably consistent racial balance in the admitted class from year to year ... consider[ing] race at virtually every step of its admission process. And its officials constantly monitor and continually reshape the racial makeup of each admitted class as it emerges. Those mechanisms confirm that Harvard's racial balancing is no accident; it is engineered ... balancing that Supreme Court precedent flatly forbids." Most importantly, DOJ argued, Harvard's admissions process employs a system of de facto quotas which is patently unconstitutional.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. illuminated this issue when they sued Harvard for a racist admissions policy that discriminated against Asians while accepting less-qualified students of other minority groups in their place. The trial court found that "more than one third of the admitted Hispanics and more than half of the admitted African Americans, would most likely not be admitted in the absence of Harvard's race-conscious admissions process." The evidence also showed that Asian-Americans were intentionally disadvantaged by the race-centered admission policy. Harvard conceded that eliminating consideration of race would increase Asian student admission. Notwithstanding findings that clearly showed civil rights violations, the seemingly leftist trial court found in favor of Harvard's perverse racist admissions policy because of the benefit it afforded to Black and Hispanic students. The aptly outraged Asian students appealed, and the DOJ sided with these students, filing a scathing brief to chastise Harvard and the ridiculous decision of the trial judge. The DOJ also announced that they are concurrently investigating a separate complaint against Harvard that was filed by more than 60 Asian-American organizations.

"Harvard's use of race benefits African-American and Hispanic applicants," explained the DOJ. Harvard's process "triples the likelihood of being admitted for African-American applicants ... [and] doubles the chances of admission for Hispanics." This race "bump" was "determinative" for "approximately 45% of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants," the trial court found. According to DOJ calculations, Harvard's use of race provides a 133% bonus to African Americans. But this benefit comes at a cost, and the payers are Asian American students. "... the evidence clearly shows that Harvard imposes a racial penalty on Asian Americans as compared to members of other minority races that Harvard favors," the DOJ explained. Harvard achieved this by systematically and impersonally marking all Asian applicants as having less integrity, being less confident, assuming they are less qualified leaders, and so on — mind-bogglingly racist personal qualification assumptions. At the same time, Black and Hispanic applicants were blanketly given the highest scores in these same categories.

Harvard's racism is clearly unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and it violates the Civil Rights Act. But it is an even more outrageous problem that affects every tax-paying American. Why? Because Harvard receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding every year. That means that Americans are paying for Harvard to engage in illegal race discrimination.

The DOJ's interjection in the Harvard case speaks volumes about the justified racism that has been the driving force of leftist diversity policy in modern times. DOJ's brief implies that enough is enough; that Americans oppose racism in any form and against any group; that we will not tolerate a benefit to one race at the unethical expense of another.