[ad_1]
Amy Y. Li, the Harvard Crimson
Marlyn McGrath, admissions director at Harvard College, left the federal courthouse in Boston last week. The plaintiff in the trial on Thursday questioned her about recently disclosed guidelines to account for race in confessions.
Two weeks after testifying in federal court, Marlyn E. McGrath, Director of Admissions at Harvard College, met again at the witness stand on Thursday. Its surprising reappearance injected a drama in the last hours of this trial under high surveillance.
The lawyers for the students for the right admissions remembered McGrath for explaining what they suggested as being an apparent discrepancy in his testimony. Asked two weeks ago, she said the institution did not have any written guidelines regarding the use of race in its assessment of candidates. But this fall, Harvard actually gave its admissions staff explicit instructions on race to choose the class of 2023.
The guidelines indicate that admissions officers may consider the applicant's race when assigning an overall score, which occurs early in the assessment process. Readers "can determine whether a student's background, including race or ethnicity, can contribute to the educational benefits of diversity at Harvard College," according to the guidelines. "Consideration of race or ethnicity can only be considered as one factor among many others." The word "only" is in bold and underlined.
Students for Fair Admissions, an organization opposed to race-oriented admission programs, claims that Harvard discriminates against candidates of Asian-American descent. The three-week trial scheduled by the group's complaint is expected to end on Friday.
In addition to giving students an overall mark, university admissions officers assign them a mark in each of four categories: athletic ability, academic achievement, extracurricular activities, and personal suitability. Students for Fair Admissions says the university is penalizing US Asian candidates in the personal rankings.
Adam K. Mortara, a lawyer representing the plaintiff, asked McGrath to explain his previous testimony in the light of the new guidelines. "The reason I gave a different answer," said McGrath, "is that I had in mind those previous reading instructions, which had been the subject of my review for the testimony . "
McGrath spoke almost too softly to hear him. Mortara does not have any.
The lawyer asked whether a reasonable person to evaluate the facts could conclude that the new guidelines are "designed to help ensure that admissions officers do not fall prey to implicit biases or racial stereotypes at the outset." against Americans of Asian descent ".
McGrath paused. Although the guidelines may have this effect, she said, they did not reflect a new way of thinking about race. His response seemed to echo what a Harvard spokesman said The Chronicle in last week's e-mail: "Harvard College admissions policies remain unchanged, reading procedures are reissued each year, and the 2023 procedures are this year's version.
"I was in Montana"
Mortara then described several emails in which Harvard officials made known the proposed revisions in his application reading procedures during the summer. In one project, admissions officers were advised to consider the applicant's race or ethnicity only if he or she mentioned it (for example, in a trial). Even then, according to the project, admissions officers should focus on the "effect" that the race or ethnicity of the students had on them, not just that they had checked a particular box.
But this language, noted Mortara, was removed from the final guidelines.
He asked McGrath why.
She said that she did not know.
"Is it possible," asked Mortara, "that the person who suggested his removal be a lawyer?"
This provoked an objection from one of Harvard's lawyers. This was supported.
"Twenty-eight years later, there were still no written instructions on the use of the breed? And then, a few weeks ago, was it added for the first time?
Mortara continued to press McGrath. He quotes a 1990 report by the Civil Rights Bureau of the US Department of Education, which investigated Harvard's use of illegal quotas to limit the admission of candidates of Asian-American origin. This report, he said, revealed that Harvard admissions officers had no written direction on the use of the breed at the time. (The report also rid the university of racial discrimination.)
"Twenty-eight years later," said Mortara, "there were still no written instructions on how to use the breed?" And then, a few weeks ago, he was added for the first time?
The guidelines have changed every year, said McGrath, to a certain extent.
Mortara asked again about the timing of the revised guidelines, apparently amended in July or August. In June, Students for Fair Admissions filed numerous documents in the Federal Court about the case, sparking a wave of international advertising that has continued throughout the summer.
"What has been the most important national news," Mortara asked, "is going on … during the summer for the Harvard admissions office?"
McGrath said that she was not sure.
"Regarding your work," he said.
"I was in Montana," McGrath said. "The newspapers are terrible."
Later, William F. Lee, an attorney representing Harvard, said the trial discovery period was between 2012 and 2014, including data on admissions for classes from 2014 to 2019. He reiterated the fact that the lawsuit was open. McGrath's statement that year.
Subsequently, Harvard lawyers, Drew Gilpin Faust, should be the last witness in the trial. Faust, who stepped down as president of the university last summer, said his country was committed to diversity and inclusion: "There is no place for discrimination at Harvard.
On Friday, both parties plan to present their closing arguments. After 15 days of testimony and thousands of news, the expectation of the judge's decision will begin.
Eric Hoover writes about admission trends, enrollment management issues and the meaning of Animal House, among other issues. He is on Twitter @erichoov, and his email address is [email protected].
[ad_2]
Source link
