[ad_1]
BOSTON – Harvard University admission procedures are being tried in the Federal District Court in Boston, which could have a significant impact on how colleges choose their new courses.
The trial began on Monday with opening statements by plaintiffs' lawyers, who accuse Harvard of effectively setting a restrictive quota for the number of US-Asian students he accepts, and for the university, which denies that his practices admission rules are discriminatory. Supporters from both sides held dueling rallies in Boston and at the Harvard campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts on the eve of the trial.
The case marks a shift from past difficulties to race-based admissions, arguing that a minority group has been unfairly sanctioned in favor of whites and other minority groups. Americans of Asian descent are divided on this case, with some claiming that they are used unfairly as a barrier in order to abolish positive action.
The court can decide broadly and adopt new laws on the issue or make a narrow decision concerning only Harvard. According to legal experts, the case will expose at least the sometimes obscure practices of admission of one of the most selective institutions in the world. William Fitzsimmons, Dean of Long-Term Admissions at Harvard, should be among the first witnesses to testify.
In his opening statement on Monday, plaintiffs lawyer Adam Mortara said the lawsuit was not against campus diversity.
"The future of affirmative action in college admissions is not on trial," Mortara said. "This essay focuses on what Harvard has done and is doing with American candidates of Asian descent and on the path traveled by Harvard in his zeal to use race in the process of admission."
Harvard lawyer Bill Lee has finished his defense of the university on a personal note. He remembered the first time he had appeared in federal court more than 40 years ago. Everyone in the room was a man, he said, and they were all white with the exception of him, an American of Asian descent. "This is not the time to go back," said Lee.
Here are the basic facts of the case and a look at what is at stake.
What is this case about?
The lawsuit accuses Harvard of discriminating against American applicants of Asian origin.
The plaintiffs argue that the university imposes on Americans of Asian origin a higher standard than those of other races and uses racial balancing to define future classes, in violation of the law of the United States. civil rights. The plaintiffs claim that he does this by manipulating aspects of his admission process, particularly non-academic gauges – including a "personal assessment" – that are difficult to quantify.
Harvard says that he does not discriminate against candidates of all races. He strongly defended his "holistic" admission policy, which sees race as one factor among many and has been cited by the Supreme Court as an example. The university does not hide its quest for a diverse class every year, but denies using racial quotas to achieve it.
but what is it? really sure?
The case is widely regarded as a battle for the future of positive action. The role of race in admissions is being debated at all levels of education, from colleges to elite high schools, gifted elementary programs, and all will ensure that a general decision is made. outlet.
The plaintiffs are attempting to eliminate the use of the breed in the admission process and accuse Harvard of not having made a bona fide effort to consider alternative neutral policies for the breed in order to prevent the use of the breed. ;achieve its goals. Harvard says yes, and eliminating race as a factor would lead to an unacceptable decline in diversity, which it values as part of its educational mission.
The lawsuit is tailor-made to go to the Supreme Court, and if that's the case, it could change the face of the admissions.
Who are the main parties?
The plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions, form a group of American-Asian students who have been rejected by Harvard. They are led by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who opposes the consideration of race in all aspects of public life. Mr. Blum, 65 years old, was behind two important cases that were brought to the Supreme Court: a case on the issue of race in admissions to the University of Texas, which he lost ; and a contestant of the key elements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which he won.
The judge is Allison D. Burroughs, who was appointed by President Barack Obama and confirmed to the Federal Judiciary in 2014. Judge Burroughs is one of the judges who delayed or blocked President Trump's first travel ban, issued in January 2017.
The defendant is Harvard, but other elite universities, including the rest of the Ivy League schools, have joined ranks, filing a joint submission stating that a decision made against Harvard would be detrimental to university diversity efforts.
What evidence will be presented?
The plaintiffs quoted preliminary versions of reports that Harvard herself had conducted on her admissions, which circulated within the university in 2013. Reports from the Harvard Institutional Research Bureau revealed that being American of Asian origin was negatively associated with an admission. Harvard says the reports are incomplete.
The complainants said Monday that they considered the 2013 reports to be among the strongest evidence. "Before, there was a website called" Harvard Not Fair ", before Harvard knew anything about this case, his own internal investigators told Harvard, told Dean Fitzgerald, that he was of the highest importance of getting a higher personal rating, "Mortara said in the opening arguments. "They also told them that there was a big tip for African Americans," said Mortara, using a common term to designate an admission preference or advantage.
Mr. Lee argued, on behalf of Harvard, that the plaintiffs misinterpreted the internal report, which was actually intended to assess the admissions of low-income students.
Both parties will rely on expert analysis. In particular, the Complainants' report, written by Dr Peter Arcidiacono, stated that the "personal assessments" attributed to US-Asian candidates tended to significantly reduce their chances of being admitted.
Harvard said Monday that it would argue that the plaintiffs are hiding some aspects of the admissions data that undermine their case, including figures showing no discrimination against certain categories of American-Americans. Asian.
Harvard Lawyer, Mr. Lee, stated that other factors, including the applicant's intended occupation and the occupation of his parents, weighed more heavily than race to determine which students were admitted, and that once these factors taken into account, the applicants' statistical support the claim of discrimination disappears.
Much of the debate in the courtroom should be about how the two experts conducted their analyzes and what they chose to include and omit.
What do Americans of Asian origin think about the case?
Surveys show that overall, Americans of Asian descent support positive action. Many fiercely defended Harvard in the lawsuit and claimed that the plaintiffs were using them against other minorities.
But the case has also been deeply painful for some and has given rise to long-standing fears of being reduced to rude stereotypes. He sowed ambivalence and division between Asian ethnic groups.
More and more Sino-American groups are making their voices heard by the fight for admission to schools. Dozens of Chinese-Americans have filed their own discrimination complaints with the Justice Department against Harvard. The department opened investigations at Harvard and Yale on the issue and supported the plaintiffs in the Harvard lawsuit.
What is the story behind this case?
The lawsuit was filed for the first time in 2014, but decades have passed. Disputes over the fact that Harvard imposes quotas on Americans of Asian origin date back at least to the 1980s. The Department of Education considered the matter in 1988, but it cleared Harvard of any wrongdoing, which Mr. Lee emphasized in his speech.
The debate resumed life in 2012 after a conservative activist published a lengthy essay on confessions at Harvard titled "The Myth of American Meritocracy," which had attracted the attention of the press. Lee described the essay as "provocative" and said research by Caroline Hoxby, an economist who studies low-income students and colleges, motivated university introspection about admissions. .
The plaintiffs in the current lawsuit tried to bring the issue even further back to the Harvard tradition of restricting its admission of Jews from the 1920s.
The president of the university, A. Lawrence Lowell, wrote in a letter of 1922 about Jewish candidates. But if we take more, we will not benefit them and will not ruin the college. "
The number of Jewish inscriptions at Harvard had increased rapidly and, in 1925, Jews accounted for 27.1% of the class of freshmen, according to court papers, which would have threatened some former students of no longer give. Mr. Lowell proposed a 15% quota, but the plan met stiff opposition. Then, in January 1926, Harvard reorganized its admission policy, including a greater emphasis on "character and fitness," according to another unsealed document, as well as on "racial characteristics" .
"The race is part of the report," said the admissions committee chairman, a student, The Gadfly, a few months after the change. "This is by no means the entire record and no man will be excluded for race reasons."
Judge Burroughs expressed skepticism about the relevance of the history of discrimination against Jews at Harvard, but agreed to allow a limited amount of evidence on this subject.
Source link
