The U.S. Supreme Court will once again take on the consideration of race in college admissions, including a case accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American applicants. Kirk Carapezza from GBH’s higher ed desk has been following the case from the start and joined Arun Rath on GBH’s All Thins Considered to discuss the case’s implications.
What follows is a lightly edited transcript.
Arun Rath: Hi, Kirk.
Kirk Carapezza: Hey, Arun.
Rath: So, doing this for a long time now. Take us back to the beginning of this case.
Carapezza: I know. This case was orchestrated and introduced by Edward Blum. He's a longtime critic of race-conscious admissions and hiring. And we have to go all the way back to 2015. Blum is the head of a group called Students for Fair Admissions, and at the time, seven years ago, it alleged bias against Harvard for holding Asian American applicants to higher academic and personal standards.
Rath: And since he started, he's also been able to get some Asians to actually sign on to the suit along with him, right?
Carapezza: That's right. You know, for a while, we couldn't talk to these people. For years, I’ve been asking Edward Blum and Students for Fair Admissions to introduce us to these Asian American applicants.
Over the summer, finally, they introduced me to Harrison Chen, who claims that admissions officers at Harvard denied him admission because of his race. I spoke with him via Zoom. And I asked him straight up whether he has any concrete evidence of that.
[previously recorded]
Harrison Chen: I have evidence that they're not willing to look at us as individuals.
Carapezza: That's a serious charge. So wouldn't Harvard look at your application, you don't think they looked at you as an individual?
Chen: Yeah. They just lumped me into the Asian category. And the data quite clearly shows that.
[recording ends]
Carapezza: Since that interview, Chen, who's the son of Chinese immigrants, has emerged as a central figure in this case. Just yesterday, minutes after the Supreme Court decided it would once again take up race in admissions, Students for Fair Admissions released a campaign-style video that features him. The video simply tells you Chen graduated at the top of his class and he applied to Harvard. It does not tell you that Harvard could fill its class over 100 times with applicants who have perfect test scores and grades just like him. And it does not tell you that Chen is now a senior at Vanderbilt University, where he told me over the summer, he's very happy and healthy.
Rath: And leaving aside the particulars of Chen, overall, how is Harvard been defending itself?
Carapezza: Yeah. Harvard has repeatedly pointed out that its holistic approach to evaluating applicants has in the past won praise from the Supreme Court as a national model. Harvard says it considers race is just one factor, among many other factors, when it decides which students to admit. Harvard also says Asian Americans account for 24% of its latest class, and just 6% of high school graduates.
The university's lawyers and supporters of race-conscious admissions have also pointed out that, during the three-week trial in Boston back in 2018, no former applicants took the stand to say Harvard rejected them because of their race. Instead, they said the prosecution relied on “dry data” and “bloodless statistics.”
Rath: Up to this point, judges have have gone along with Harvard's argument in this, right? They've so far rejected the argument brought by the plaintiffs.
Carapezza: Yeah, that's right. U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs here in Boston and the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston both ruled that Harvard does not discriminate against Asian Americans.
Rath: Right, and now, with the Supreme Court set to weigh in, lay out what's at stake here.
Carapezza: Well, for selective private and public colleges, a lot is at stake, Arun. With a more conservative makeup, the nine justices will review the lower court's decision, finding Harvard's admissions practices to be legal — and another, upholding the University of North Carolina's practices. Harvard President Larry Bacow says that decision to review these cases will put at risk 40 years of legal precedent, granting colleges the right to create diverse campus communities.
Some long-term legal observers think the Supreme Court will have to perform a bit of intellectual dishonesty here to kind of strike down the consideration of race. In employment discrimination cases, for example, the court has ruled statistics are not enough. You have to prove intent to discriminate. Northeastern University law professor Daniel Medwed says the court's review may not mean colleges must stop considering race — since they would actually be tough to enforce.
[previously recorded]
Daniel Medwed: But it certainly is a bad sign for the future of that policy. And given the current political landscape of the court, it would seem as though opponents of race-conscious admissions might have the upper hand.
[recording ends]
Carapezza: Medwed points out the court is much more conservative than it was 40 years ago, and it's kind of hard to see the three new Trump appointees and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito upholding the status quo. The only real question now is Chief Justice Roberts.
Rath: Kirk, it's been great to have you to catch up on all of this, and looking forward to talking with you more as it unfolds. Thank you.
Carapezza: Thank you.
Rath: That's Kirk Carapezza from GBH’s higher ed desk.
