A message to the community

Sincerely,

Claudine Gay
President of Harvard University

The post A message from President Claudine Gay appeared first on Harvard Admissions Case.

Today, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The Court held th����ר�� College’s admissions system does not comply with the principles of the equal protection clause embodied in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Court also ruled that colleges and universities may consider in admissions decisions “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” We will certainly comply with the Court’s decision.

We write today to reaffirm the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences. That principle is as true and important today as it was yesterday. So too are the abiding values that have enabled us—and every great educational institution—to pursue the high calling of educating creative thinkers and bold leaders, of deepening human knowledge, and of promoting progress, justice, and human flourishing.

We affirm that:

• Because the teaching, learning, research, and creativity that bring progress and change require debate and disagreement, diversity and difference are essential to academic excellence.
• To prepare leaders for a complex world, Harvard must admit and educate a student body whose members reflect, and have lived, multiple facets of human experience. No part of what makes us who we are could ever be irrelevant.
• Harvard must always be a place of opportunity, a place whose doors remain open to those to whom they had long been closed, a place where many will have the chance to live dreams their parents or grandparents could not have dreamed.

For almost a decade, Harvard has vigorously defended an admissions system that, as two federal courts ruled, fully complied with longstanding precedent. In the weeks and months ahead, drawing on the talent and expertise of our Harvard community, we will determine how to preserve, consistent with the Court’s new precedent, our essential values.

The heart of our extraordinary institution is its people. Harvard will continue to be a vibrant community whose members come from all walks of life, all over the world. To our students, faculty, staff, researchers, and alumni—past, present, and future—who call Harvard your home, please know that you are, and always will be, Harvard. Your remarkable contributions to our community and the world drive Harvard’s distinction. Nothing today has changed that.

Sincerely,

Lawrence S. Bacow
President, Harvard University

Alan M. Garber
Provost, Harvard University

Meredith Weenick
Executive Vice President, Harvard University

Claudine Gay
Dean, Faculty of Arts and Sciences
President-elect, Harvard University

Tomiko Brown-Nagin
Dean, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study

Nancy Coleman
Dean, Division of Continuing Education and University Extension

George Q. Daley
Dean, Harvard Medical School

Srikant Datar
Dean, Harvard Business School

Emma Dench
Dean, Harvard Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Francis J. Doyle III
Dean, Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

Douglas Elmendorf
Dean, Harvard Kennedy School of Government

William V. Giannobile
Dean, Harvard School of Dental Medicine

David N. Hempton
Dean, Harvard Divinity School

Rakesh Khurana
Dean, Harvard College

Bridget Terry Long
Dean, Harvard Graduate School of Education

John F. Manning
Dean, Harvard Law School

Sarah M. Whiting
Dean, Graduate School of Design

Michelle A. Williams
Dean, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

The post Supreme Court Decision appeared first on Harvard Admissions Case.

The post Statement on the SCOTUS Case appeared first on Harvard Admissions Case.

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided to hear arguments in a lawsuit challenging nearly a half-century of consistent legal precedent affirming race-conscious admissions policies in American colleges and universities. Many members of our community are disheartened at this news, as am I. It was only a week ago that we were called to reflect on the legacy of Dr. King. In doing so, we invoked his words and will do so again: “The time is always right to do right.” Now is the time for courageous leadership.  

Today, I write to join President Bacow ) in reassuring you that our University has never been more committed to defending diversity, the soundness of our admissions processes, and the belief that diversity of all kinds—including race—provides educational benefits.   

I encourage you to get the facts and learn more about the . This site will be updated regularly with news, statements, and other information about the lawsuit. For those interested in learning more about how to support this effort, please be on the lookout for additional information. 

We know that diverse learning environments improve scholarship, interpersonal understanding, and provide a microcosm of global diversity here on campus. And we know that race is only one of many aspects of a person’s identity and experience, and it is only one of many factors considered in Harvard admissions. I am immensely proud of the work that has been done by Harvard College Admissions and across the University to help create the diverse work and learning environment that we now enjoy. Diversity is our pathway to excellence, and we will continue to protect the benefits we now enjoy. This will be the foundation for Harvard’s excellence for centuries to come.  

We remain confident, as were the  who heard the case already, that our practices are not discriminatory and are consistent with Supreme Court precedent. There is no evidence that warrants a different outcome. I encourage all of you to join us in the ongoing work of ensuring th����ר�� is as diverse and inclusive a place as it can be. 

The months ahead will require leadership, a resolute commitment to our values and to each other. Although I am saddened that we must, once again, defend diversity, continue we must. The moral arc of the universe will bend, but only if we bend it. I look forward to continuing to build our beloved community—together.  

In community,

___________________
Sherri Ann Charleston
Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer

The post Defending Diversity from Sherri Ann Charleston appeared first on Harvard Admissions Case.

The post SCOTUS Statement from President Bacow appeared first on Harvard Admissions Case.

Now is not the time to reverse the unequivocal decisions of two federal courts reinforcing 40 years of Supreme Court precedent.

The post Harvard: Statement on United States Department of Justice brief to Supreme Court appeared first on Harvard Admissions Case.

Harvard today (5/17) filed a brief in the Supreme Court of the United States opposing a petition filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), which asked the Court to reconsider nearly 40 years of legal precedent supporting the limited consideration of race as one factor among many in college admissions and to review two lower court decisions concluding th����ר��’s admissions process fully comports with applicable precedent. As Harvard’s brief explains, SFFA provides no good reason for the Court to revisit its precedent or the lower court decisions, especially given the petition’s disregard of the lower courts’ findings and distorted presentation of the relevant facts.

“After years of discovery, SFFA produced no persuasive evidence to support its legal claims. The court of appeals found no error in the district court’s meticulous explanation of how it resolved the disputed facts and applied the relevant law. SFFA is not entitled to battle out the facts a third time in this Court. And it identifies no unsettled legal issue meriting review.”

BACKGROUND

After a lengthy trial, including testimony from 30 witnesses, a federal district court completely rejected SFFA’s arguments th����ר�� College discriminates against Asian-American applicants. The district court concluded th����ר�� College’s admissions process comports with the Supreme Court’s precedents governing race-conscious college and university admissions policies and does not discriminate against Asian-American applicants. The First Circuit upheld those findings and conclusions as firmly grounded in the trial record and precedent.

SFFA filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking the Court’s review of these decisions. The brief filed today by Harvard responds to that SFFA petition. The Court is expected to decide next month whether to take the appeal.

SUMMARY: BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

The Admissions Process & Current Litigation

The Harvard brief summarizes the Harvard College admission process aimed at creating the diverse student body essential to its educational mission. The brief also reviews the current litigation, originally filed by SFFA, that claimed Harvard discriminates against Asian-American applicants, engages in racial balancing, gives race too much weight, and eschews workable race-neutral alternatives. The district court rejected all of these claims, concluding:

“…Harvard has a compelling interest in pursuing the educational benefits of diversity, finding ‘[t]he evidence at trial …[makes] clear that a heterogeneous student body promotes a more robust academic environment with a greater depth and breadth of learning, encourages learning outside the classroom, and creates a richer sense of community.”

Further, the district court concluded th����ר��’s admissions process comports with Supreme Court precedents, and in that process, the consideration of race is narrowly tailored to achieve the educational benefits of diversity. A federal appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision.

No Reason for Review, No Discrimination.

The Harvard brief reviews the conclusion of the district court, affirmed by the appeals court, th����ר�� College does not discriminate against Asian-American applicants, and further, th����ר�� does not engage racial balancing, does not give race too much weight, and has no workable race-neutral alternatives available.

“SFFA attempts to portray Harvard’s process as an example of race-conscious admissions gone awry. But the narrative SFFA presents was rejected by the district court in detailed factual findings upheld by the court of appeals. This Court will not reverse such ‘concurrent findings’ of two lower courts absent ‘a very obvious and exceptional showing of error’… SFFA cannot come close to making that demanding showing.”

“Unable to seriously challenge the rejection of its claims under existing law, SFFA asks the Court to overrule more than forty years of decisions regarding the limited consideration of race in university admissions… SFFA falls far short of providing a ‘compelling’ reason…for the Court to repudiate that precedent…”

“Having failed to make the case th����ר��’s admissions practices contravene the Court’s precedents governing the use of race in admissions, SFFA asks the Court to overthrow them. But SFFA offers no legitimate justification for such an extraordinary step—particularly in a statutory case such as this. If Congress wanted to amend Title VI to prohibit private universities from considering race in admissions, it could do so, but it has not.”

SFFA Offers Recycled, Rejected Arguments

The Harvard brief notes repeatedly where SFFA, in its petition to the Court, offers recycled arguments that were completely rejected by the district court and the appeals court.

“Students for Fair Admissions’ (SFFA’s) petition recycles allegations both courts rejected and offers a thoroughly distorted presentation of the record.”

“SFFA tries to sidestep the lower courts’ findings by proffering its own version of the record… But SFFA’s unreliable portrayal of the facts fatally undermines its case for review.”

“SFFA’s petition is based on a misleading depiction of the proceedings below, rests on factual assertions the lower courts squarely rejected, and ignores the contrary findings.”

Importance of Diversity

The Harvard brief reinforces the importance of diversity at colleges and universities and the ability of these institutions to create student bodies diverse along many dimensions, including race. And, it quotes from prior Supreme Court decisions that have concluded the same. Harvard considers diverse campus communities essential to its mission to educate “citizens and citizen-leaders for our society.”

“For more than four decades, this Court has recognized that universities have a compelling interest in pursuing the educational benefits that flow from student bodies that are diverse along many dimensions, including race.“

“Diversity ‘promotes cross-racial understanding, helps to break down racial stereotypes,’ ‘enables students to better understand persons of different races,’ produces ‘livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting’ classroom discussion, ‘promotes learning outcomes,’ and ‘better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society.’… It also provides substantial societal benefits, including ‘cultivat[ing] a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry,’ by making clear that ‘the path to leadership [is] open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.’” 
 

“…prohibiting consideration of race now would lead to substantial declines in diversity on many college campuses, with significant adverse effects on the educational experiences of all students.”

“Endorsing SFFA’s view at this moment in our Nation’s history—when the need to cultivate greater tolerance, acceptance and understanding is particularly acute—would be a tragic mistake.”

The post Harvard: Statement on SCOTUS opposition brief appeared first on Harvard Admissions Case.

The post Harvard: Statement on U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion appeared first on Harvard Admissions Case.