Harvard’s admissions officers tended to evaluate Asian-Americans as compared to members of other racial groups as having less integrity, being less confident, constituting less-qualified leaders and so on: U.S. amicus brief

The “expansive use of race” in the admission process of the prestigious Harvard University violates the civil rights law, the Trump administration has told the U.S. Supreme Court as the Justice Department continues its probe into the allegations that the Ivy League college discriminated against Asian-Americans.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2017 launched an investigation into Harvard’s admission process after a complaint of discrimination was filed by more than 60 Asian-American organisations.

Indian-Americans feel that they get discriminated by the Massachusetts-based university under its current admission policy. The investigation remains under way.

Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division said that race discrimination hurts people and is never benign after the DOJ on Monday filed an amicus brief in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. versus President and Fellows of Harvard College.

In its amicus brief, the U.S. explains that Harvard’s expansive use of race in its admissions process violates federal civil-rights law and Supreme Court precedent.

Also read | Searching for veritas at Harvard

“Unconstitutionally partitioning Americans into racial and ethnic blocs harms all involved by fostering stereotypes, bitterness and division among the American people. The Department of Justice will continue to fight against illegal race discrimination,” Dreiband said.

As a condition of receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer funding every year, Harvard expressly agrees to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, a cornerstone civil-rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, colour or national origin in programmes and activities that receive federal financial assistance, the DOJ said.

In this case, Students for Fair Admissions, an organisation of students and parents, alleged that Harvard College intentionally discriminates against Asian-American applicants when making admissions decisions. The district judge denied Harvard’s various attempts to dismiss the lawsuit, and the case proceeded to a three-week trial in 2018.

Although the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds may consider applicants’ race in certain limited circumstances, the district court’s factual findings demonstrated that Harvard’s use of race is anything but limited.

Also read | Affirmative action at the crossroads

The district court concluded 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”.

And these race-based bonuses come at a significant cost to Asian-American applicants, who collectively suffer a substantial penalty under Harvard’s race-based admission regime.

Nevertheless, the district court concluded that Harvard’s use of race in the admission process did not violate federal law or Supreme Court precedent, the DOJ said in a statement.

The U.S.’ amicus brief explains the evidence at trial showed “that Harvard actively engages in racial balancing that Supreme Court precedent flatly forbids”. The evidence also demonstrated that Harvard’s admission officers consistently score Asian-American applicants lower on the so-called “personal rating“.

“In other words, Harvard’s admissions officers tended to evaluate Asian-Americans as compared to members of other racial groups as having less integrity, being less confident, constituting less-qualified leaders and so on.

“That disparity is undisputed and explained,” the brief points out.

For these and other reasons, the US urged the appellate court to reverse the district court’s judgment.