A federal judge Tuesday cleared Harvard University of discriminating against Asian American applicants in a ruling that was seen as a major victory for supporters of affirmative action in college admissions across the U.S.

But a paper by several economists directly contradicts the ruling, revealing that more than 40percent of white students were admitted not based on merit - but because they were athletes, related to university donors or the children of faculty.

The paper claims that without these preferential treatments, three-quarters of those white applicants would have been rejected from the Ivy League university if they were treated as non-white applicants.

The paper shows that removing preferences for athletes and legacies would 'significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged.'

A federal judge Tuesday cleared Harvard University of discriminating against Asian American applicants, but a paper by several economists directly contradicts the ruling

The study's lead author, Duke economist Peter Arcidiacono, was an expert witness against Harvard in the lawsuit.

The study's lead author, Duke economist Peter Arcidiacono, was an expert witness against Harvard in the lawsuit

The paper is based on data obtained during the trial and publicly released reports.

It breaks downs the preferences Harvard gives for recruited athletes, legacies, those on the dean's interest list (relatives of donors) and children of faculty and staff (ALDCs).

'Among white admits, over 43% are ALDC. Among admits who are African American, Asian American, and Hispanic, the share is less than 16% each,' the paper shows.

The admitted white athletes also tended to be involved in what are known as 'rich kids sports'.

These sports could include skiing, crew, hockey, lacrosse and water polo - sports dominated by those of affluence which require costly private lessons and equipment.

These are sports that are seldom seen in low-income public schools and at Harvard, these athletes often come from high-income families earning more than $500,000.

Arcidiacono's paper shows that nearly 90percent of recruited athletes gain admission to Harvard, while only six percent of applicants get admitted overall.

'While Harvard does not offer athletic scholarships, each of its 42 sports teams has a liaison that moderates contact throughout the admissions process between the admissions office and that team's coach,' the paper states.

Nearly 20percent of Harvard's student body participate in intercollegiate athletics. In contrast, Stanford's student body - which has about 300 more undergraduates - has 300 fewer athletes.

And unlike Harvard, Stanford offers over 350 athletic scholarships.

Across the Ivy League, many sports teams consist of wealthier and whiter student athletes than the rest of their class.

Black and Hispanic students account for less than 10percent of Ivy League athletes in sports like fencing, golf, ice hockey, lacrosse, rowing, sailing, skiing, squash, tennis, volleyball, water polo, and wrestling.

In the 2017-2018 year, about 700 Ivy League athletes participated in rowing and lacrosse while fewer than 30 were black, according to NCAA data.

the white athletes who were admitted tend to be involved in what are known as 'rich kids sports', which could include lacrosse, skiing, rowing and crew

These 'rich kid sports' are sports dominated by those of affluence that require costly private lessons and equipment, which includes crew

The lawsuit Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard University provided an unprecedented look at how an elite school makes admissions decisions.

Federal Judge Allison Dale Burroughs said in a long-awaited decision that while Harvard's admissions process is not perfect, it was right, for now, to factor in race to form a diverse student body.

'The rich diversity at Harvard and other colleges and universities and the benefits that flow from that diversity will foster the tolerance, acceptance and understanding that will ultimately make race-conscious admissions obsolete,' she said.

The case was filed in 2014 by Students for Fair Admissions, a group led by conservative white activist Edward Blum, who previously attacked the affirmative action policies at the University of Texas.

The judge's decision, which came nearly a year after a three-week trial that began in October 2018, closed the first round in the 2014 lawsuit that reignited debate over affirmative action. Harvard graduates are see during May's commencement

The US Supreme Court ruled against him in 2016, upholding the university's admissions policy.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Harvard had used personality criteria to favor black, Hispanic and white applicants over Asian students with similar grades.

The plaintiffs had argued that if admissions were based just on grades then more Asian students would be admitted.

Harvard denied discriminating against Asians but defended its use of broader selection criteria than academic excellence, such as personality, when considering who to admit.