Harvard Admission: Was It Fair? – The Asian Discrimination Lawsuit

“Better scores didn’t help” – Was there real discrimination against Asian applicants in Harvard's admission process?

Hello! The word ‘fairness’ in US college admissions has been more closely scrutinized than ever, especially after the lawsuit filed against Harvard University for discrimination against Asian applicants. This lawsuit, which began with the question, “Why are only Asian applicants rejected when their scores and activities are the same as others?”, revealed issues with ‘invisible evaluations’ hidden in the admissions policy. Even as I was preparing to study abroad, I heard that Asian applicants were required to have higher scores, and I wondered if that was truly reasonable. Today, we will take a closer look at this sensitive but important issue: the ‘Harvard Admission Discrimination Lawsuit’.

Table of Contents

Background of the Case and Lawsuit Plaintiff’s Claims and Data Harvard's Defense and Counterarguments Court's Ruling and Supreme Court Final Judgment Debate on Affirmative Action Impact on Future Admission Policies

Background of the Case and Lawsuit

The lawsuit began in 2014 when an organization called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed a case against Harvard. This organization claimed that Asian applicants were being unfairly evaluated compared to other racial groups. They provided statistical evidence showing that Asian applicants received lower scores in the ‘personal rating’ category, which is a non-cognitive evaluation factor, and argued that this was racial discrimination.

Plaintiff’s Claims and Data

SFFA argued that Harvard intentionally gave Asian applicants lower ‘personal ratings’, and that even those with excellent SAT scores, GPAs, and extracurricular activities were being rejected. According to their statistical analysis, Asian applicants had lower acceptance rates compared to other racial groups and consistently received lower scores in subjective categories like personality and leadership.

Category	Asian Average	Other Racial Average
SAT Score	Above 1490	Around 1400
GPA	4.2	3.9
Personal Rating	Lowest	Above average

Harvard's Defense and Counterarguments

Harvard responded by arguing that “admissions are based on a holistic review that includes more than just quantitative measures”. In addition to academic ability, factors such as essays, recommendation letters, and social contribution are considered in the evaluation, and race is only a ‘positive consideration’ rather than a discriminatory factor.

• Admissions are based on a comprehensive evaluation of multiple factors
• Asian students represent about 20% of all admitted students
• ‘Personal rating’ includes objective factors like third-party evaluations

Court’s Ruling and Supreme Court Final Judgment

In the initial trial and appeals, Harvard won consecutively. The court ruled that Harvard did not use race discriminatorily, but instead considered race as one factor within legal bounds. However, in June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned this decision and ruled that “Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s admissions policies are unconstitutional”, effectively declaring the end of Affirmative Action.

• Race cannot be used as a criterion for judging individual applicants’ merits
• While personal stories and backgrounds can be considered, ‘race itself’ cannot
• Conclusion: Violates the Equal Protection Clause

Debate on Affirmative Action

Policy Purpose	Supporters’ View	Opponents’ View
Address historical inequalities	Bridges the opportunity gap for Black and Hispanic communities	Acts as reverse discrimination today
Enhance diversity	Ensures diverse perspectives on campus	Prioritizing identity over merit is unfair
Fairness in college admission	Necessary consideration of social background	‘Merit-based’ students are harmed

Impact on Future Admission Policies

• Universities will inevitably revise their admissions criteria
• Admissions essays focusing on ‘experience-based’ narratives will become more prominent
• Concerns about a decrease in minority student representation
• Increased likelihood of higher Asian admission rates

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q Does the Harvard lawsuit only apply to Asian students?

Although the plaintiffs are Asian applicants, the ruling highlights fairness issues in admissions policies for all racial groups.

Q What is ‘Personal Rating’ based on?

It is based on non-cognitive qualities such as personality, leadership, and empathy, assessed through essays, recommendations, and interviews.

Q Has race-based admission been completely banned in the US?

The Supreme Court’s ruling bans direct racial consideration, but indirect references to background or experience are still allowed.

Q Will other universities be affected by this ruling?

Yes. The ruling applies to all US universities, and top private and public universities are revising their admissions criteria.

Q Does this ruling make it harder for minority applicants to get accepted?

While formal racial considerations are restricted, there are increasing efforts to maintain diverse applications based on socio-economic background or personal narratives.

Q Has this ruling made things more favorable for Asian students?

Asian applicants with relatively higher grades are more likely to be fairly evaluated, leading to better chances in the admissions process.

In Conclusion

The Harvard Admission Discrimination Lawsuit was not just about one university or one racial group. It raised important questions about the essence of the admission system, fairness, and diversity, and how these values can clash and compromise. This case made me reflect on whether a truly merit-based society is possible. While grades that can be proven by numbers are important, we must not forget that human potential is much broader than that. Going forward, universities should focus on understanding and respecting the life context and narrative of students, not just on scores. I hope this debate leads to better educational philosophies.