This week, a federal judge ruled that Harvard does not discriminate against Asian-Americans in its admissions process.
Judge Allison Burroughs handed down her decision in Boston nearly a year after a three-week trial in which the group Students for Fair Admissions claimed that Harvard held Asian-Americans to higher standards than other groups of applicants. Throughout the course of the trial, Harvard adamantly denied these charges.
Paul Reville is former secretary of education and a professor at Harvard University's Graduate School of Education, where he also runs the Education Redesign Lab.
He joined Boston Public Radio on Thursday to break down the decision.
"Initially what it seems to say is that there's still a place for universities to make a choice above a certain line of qualification, in building a balanced class, that reflects more the realities of the outside world so as to better prepare our young people for civic life and leadership in a real world that's very diverse. If there are elements of selection that come into that that give consideration to factors of diversity, as the Supreme Court held some time ago, that's okay," he said.
Reville noted the decision did not claim Harvard's admissions process was perfect; it brought to light biases around admissions based on legacies or athletics, and the university's relationship with its donors.
"Is it fair to give preference to donors? Does the government have the right to regulate how Harvard does that? ... Does it have the right to favor the children of alums, does it have the right to favor people who are athletes, particularly athletes who are in obscure sports where there isn't diverse participation in the first place, so therefore it tilts in one way?" said Reville.
