Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
Students for Fair Admissions, INC. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard Corporation) is a US District Court for the Massachusetts Judicial District case heard in 2018 and 2019 regarding whether Harvard University through its admissions practices based on the consideration of the media attention in the United States Unlawfully discriminates against ethnic Asian applicants.
background
Applications for admission to study at Harvard University far exceed the number of places on offer. According to the district court, the university received 35,000 applications across all courses for the 2019 academic year, but only granted around 2000 admissions. The disparity between the number of highly qualified applicants and the available study places justifies the need for a rigorous selection process with high demands on the academic and non-academic performance of the candidates. At the same time, the university aims to ensure that the admitted students are diverse and heterogeneous according to criteria such as ethnicity, nationality and religion. Under-representation of certain ethnic groups, such as black Americans or Hispanics , should be avoided.
Even so, Hispanics and black Americans are still underrepresented at Harvard, accounting for around 20% combined, compared to around 30% of the total US population. By contrast, applicants with an Asian background are over-represented (22% of students at Harvard, but only 6% of the general population).
Standardized tests, such as the SAT or GPA , form an essential basis for the admission requirements to Harvard University. However, every year thousands of candidates apply with the maximum number of points provided for these tests. In addition to these tests, Harvard University therefore uses various other academic and non-academic criteria for the admission decision. There are also personal interviews with Harvard alumni and letters of recommendation from teachers and other caregivers. In addition, Harvard University specifically promotes applications from minorities, especially black Americans and Hispanics, for example through personal interviews and “search lists” that are used to target potentially suitable candidates from minority populations. The Academic Office makes the final decision on admission based on four evaluation categories: (1) Academic achievements, e.g. B. test results, school grades, etc., (2) Voluntary additional services ( "extracurricular activities" ), z. B. activity as class or student representative, (3) athletic performance, and (4) "personal qualities" of the candidate, e.g. B. empathy, helpfulness, character integrity, willingness to perform, etc. In addition, the award of revaluations ( tip ) is provided for low-income applicants or due to belonging to certain ethnic groups.
Analyzes by Harvard University and by third parties have shown that there are significant differences between ethnic groups, particularly with regard to the quantifiable evaluation criteria. Admitted Asian students have significantly higher SAT or GPA scores on average compared to accepted students from other ethnic groups. Black Americans and Hispanics in particular, but to a lesser extent also white candidates, were significantly more often upgraded by “personal qualities”, or were given upgrades for other more subjective criteria. According to statistical studies, ethnicity plays an important role in the admission decision for 45% of admitted black Americans and Hispanics. As a result, a third of admitted Hispanics and half of admitted black Americans would not have been admitted to Harvard University regardless of their ethnicity. The proportion of black Americans and Hispanics in the student body would decrease from about 14% to 6% and 9% respectively. Differences in the evaluation of applications from students of different ethnicity are not limited to Harvard University alone. According to a study by Princeton University, Asian applicants with otherwise equal qualifications at eight elite universities surveyed need a SAT score 140 points higher than white applicants in order to be admitted to the course. Compared to Hispanics and Black Americans, the point difference is 270 and 450 points (with a maximum of 1600 possible points).
In 2018, the Students for Fair Admissions group founded by conservative political activists filed a lawsuit against Harvard University in the US District Court of Massachusetts. The admission policy, according to the plaintiffs, violated non-discrimination laws and the principle of equal treatment.
judgment
On September 30, 2019, Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that Harvard University's admissions practices did not violate any applicable law. A diverse student body that is heterogeneous in terms of ethnic origin is beneficial for the academic and personal development of all students. This means that the preferred admission of students from otherwise underrepresented groups can be achieved despite poorer formal admission requirements, such as B. test results in standardized tests, even if this disadvantages other applicants from otherwise over-represented groups with formally better admission requirements. In particular, it is permissible to use non-quantifiable criteria, such as the personality of the candidate, to decide on admission, whereby belonging to an underrepresented group can be considered a positive personality trait. Although the appearance of a certain arbitrariness could not be completely avoided, the current legal situation does not require completely fair and comprehensible approval decisions. The resulting apparent disadvantage of Asian applicants with better formal academic admission requirements is also not the result of an intention to discriminate, but rather a consequence of the intention to promote underrepresented groups of applicants. In the overall view of all legal and social considerations, the admission regulations of Harvard University are thus legally compliant.
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ NBC News, October 1, 2019: Judge rules in favor of Harvard in affirmative action case , accessed October 18, 2019.
- ^ Reasons for the judgment of the district court, p. 22.
- ^ Reasons for the judgment of the district court, p. 84.
- ↑ Washington Examiner, June 8, 2018: The Balancing Game , accessed October 18, 2019.