Harvard Law has long been the epitome of leftist elitism. And as such, they are all about identity politics. But in the past few years, it seems, they have taken this idea of coddling typically marginalized minorities to an extreme.
In fact, it was found that it was actually harder for white and especially Asian Americans to gain admission into the institution than any other race after a number of Asian American students were rejected on what seems to be nothing more than race.
Now, of course, the college professes that while it does use race in the admissions process, it only does so to ensure diversity within its population. However, closer looking into the methods doesn’t precisely look so innocent.
And so the issue was brought before a court, with several of the rejected Asian American students filing a lawsuit against Harvard.
The suit began last year in a federal court, where the judge ruled in favor of Harvard, claiming that discriminatory or unfair action was being taken by the school. Since then, the case has moved to an appeals court.
But here too, it seems law or at least these particular judges are on Harvard’s side.
According to Politico, “Two judges from the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district court was correct in ruling that Harvard’s limited use of race in its admissions process in order to achieve diversity “is consistent with the requirements of Supreme Court precedent.”
The outlet noted that Harvard spokesperson Rachael Dane was quite pleased with the outcome. “Today’s decision once again finds that Harvard’s admission policies are consistent with Supreme Court precedent, and lawfully and appropriately pursue Harvard’s efforts to create a diverse campus that promotes learning and encourages mutual respect and understanding in our community. As we have said time and time again, now is not the time to turn back the clock on diversity and opportunity.”
But tell that to the students who tried and failed to gain entry to the prestigious school simply because of their parent’s DNA. For them, it certainly feels like discrimination.
And even the college itself, as well as the court who ruled in favor of it, has admitted that it is harder for an Asian American student to get in. In fact, every model put forward in the case found that Asian Americans were by far the least likely demographic to be accepted into the school.
The 104-page summarization stated that the “statistical model using the personal rating… shows that Asian American identity has a statistically insignificant overall average marginal effect43 on admission probability -.08%. This means that, on average, the model shows that an Asian American student has a .08% lower chance of admission to Harvard than a similarly situated white student.”
Now, I know, .08% isn’t a lot, hence the use of the word “insignificant.” However, this isn’t the only model being used.
Another model is used by the SFFA, which doesn’t use the personal rating the above one does. In this case, it “shows a statistically significant overall average marginal effect of -.34%. This means that, on average the model shows that an Asian American student has a .34% lower chance of admission to Harvard than a similarly situated white student.” They also note that this is “statistically significantly different from zero.”
So not so small potatoes after all.
And yet the court still decided that Harvard “has run its admission by the book,” according to a constitutional law professor at the University of South Carolina, Derek W. Black. However, he also noted that the recent ruling didn’t mean a case could be made against the school in the Supreme Court.
And that’s exactly where the case looks to be heading.
Edward Blum, president of the Students for Fair Admissions, which is representing the wronged Asian American students, says their “hope is not lost. This lawsuit is now on track to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we will ask the justices to end these unfair and unconstitutional race-based admissions policies at Harvard and all colleges and universities.”
We shall see if the school can continue to hide their racist ways in the Upper Court, or if justice will be served to a school that has long used its knowledge of the law to get away with unfair action and policies.