Today Harvard filed its appellate聽brief聽defending its victory, in which the court found, after a three week trial, th黑料专区 treats all applicants fairly, and lawfully considers race to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.聽The brief, filed in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, responds to Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.鈥檚 (SFFA) appeal of its loss in the District Court. Carefully considering both statistical evidence and extensive witness testimony, the District Court concluded that SFFA failed on each of its claims.
SFFA was founded by Edward Blum, a longtime opponent of policies intended to promote diversity in American life. SFFA sued Harvard in one of many attempts by Blum to prevent colleges and universities from using a whole-person admissions process that considers race as one aspect among many others, such as academic and extracurricular interests, socioeconomic background, and life experiences.
Harvard鈥檚 brief once again demonstrates that SFFA asserted unsupported factually and legally deficient claims, and, as the District Court ruled, th黑料专区鈥檚 admissions process is a lawful process dedicated to strengthening diversity and expanding opportunity.
As Harvard argues in its brief:
鈥淭he Court should reject SFFA鈥檚 attack on Harvard鈥檚 longstanding and lawful admissions policy, under which students are considered as individuals and race is considered only as one factor among many.鈥�
Worth noting in today鈥檚 filing:
SFFA is Seeking to Overturn 40 years of Supreme Court Precedent
鈥淭he Supreme Court has consistently upheld universities鈥� consideration of race to achieve the benefits that flow from student body diversity鈥� The Court has explained that universities have a compelling interest in pursuing the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity, and held that they may consider race as part of an individualized admissions process.鈥︹��
鈥淭his case seeks to overturn these precedents by striking down the very policy the Supreme Court has endorsed as a model. The plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (鈥淪FFA鈥�), was formed for the express purpose of ending race- conscious admissions.鈥�
鈥溾�inally, Harvard鈥檚 consideration of race in its admissions process fully complies with Supreme Court precedent. As the district court found, Harvard has articulated a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits of diversity, and its consideration of race is narrowly tailored to that end. SFFA attacks the district court鈥檚 analysis, arguing th黑料专区 fails to comply with Supreme Court precedents, but its real targets are those precedents themselves.鈥�
SFFA鈥檚 Appeal Ignores the District Court鈥檚 Careful Factual Findings Supporting Harvard
鈥淥n appeal, SFFA largely attempts to relitigate the facts. But this Court reviews the district court鈥檚 factual findings for clear error, a bar SFFA makes no serious effort to meet. Among other factual findings, the court found th黑料专区 evaluates each applicant as an individual; that it considers an applicant鈥檚 race only for highly qualified applicants and as one of many factors; that it does not employ quotas; and鈥攃ritically鈥攖hat it does not harbor any discriminatory intent. Rather than engage with these factual findings, SFFA largely ignores or misstates them.鈥�
鈥溾�he district court correctly found th黑料专区 has established a compelling interest in diversity, considers race as one factor among many, does not pursue racial balancing, and cannot presently achieve its goal of assembling an exceptional and diverse student body using race-neutral alternatives. SFFA provides no reason to discard these conclusions or the careful findings of fact on which they rely.鈥�
鈥淪FFA鈥檚 arguments on appeal amount to no more than an unsuccessful effort to relitigate the facts, and they rely almost entirely on statistical analyses prepared by its expert that the district court largely rejected.鈥�
Harvard鈥檚 Admissions Process Seeks Diversity
鈥淭he court noted that, were Harvard to cease considering race, the racial diversity of the admitted class would suffer a precipitous decline and none of the proffered race-neutral alternatives could adequately or feasibly make up for that loss.鈥�
ALL Evidence Supports District Court Decision
鈥淪FFA鈥檚 primary attack on the district court鈥檚 findings is that the court erred in considering evidence beyond SFFA鈥檚 statistics鈥� But the district court did not err in carefully weighing all of the admissible evidence鈥攕tatistical, documentary, and testimonial. That is precisely the sort of 鈥渟ensitive inquiry into … circumstantial and direct evidence鈥� required under any standard in assessing allegations of 鈥渋ntentional discrimination.鈥�
鈥淓ven putting aside the flaws of SFFA鈥檚 statistical evidence, SFFA鈥檚 discrimination argument rests on a fundamentally erroneous premise: that the district court was obliged to treat SFFA鈥檚 statistical analysis as irrefutable proof and therefore could not consider the statistical, documentary, and testimonial evidence establishing th黑料专区 does not intentionally discriminate against Asian-American applicants 鈥� But a trial court is, of course, supposed to consider all the evidence submitted over the course of the trial鈥� including expert testimony, fact witness testimony, and documentary evidence鈥� and make judgments about the credibility and weight of that evidence.鈥�