The admissions process at Harvard begins and the university is accused of bias against Americans of Asian descent

BOSTON – Charges that the Harvard University admissions process is rigged against Americans of Asian descent were launched and repressed Monday as the lawsuit opened, which could be a new milestone in the long debate on affirmative action.

The Students for Fair Admissions group, which represents American candidates of Asian descent, asserted in federal court that Harvard violated their civil rights by penalizing them for their race at key stages in their deliberations.

Lawyer Adam K. Mortara, representing the plaintiff, has frequently referred to statistical analyzes which, he says, show that Harvard attributes to Americans of Asian origin a significantly lower score than subjective personal qualities, including leadership and compassion, as candidates from other racial groups. This note, he said, is often crucial for the outcome.

"Harvard has committed and continues to engage in intentional discrimination against Americans of Asian descent," Mortara said. He also claimed that Harvard had been aware of the problem since "red flags of warning" were raised internally in 2013, but the university did not do anything about it. topic.

Harvard's senior attorney, William F. Lee, denied that the university discriminates against Americans of Asian descent or any other demographic group. The doors of Harvard, he said, "are open to students from all walks of life and all means."

Lee described what he described as a laborious revision process in which race is one of many factors. "Harvard never considered a candidate's race to be negative," said Lee. If the race plays a role with a given student, he said, it is "always viewed positively".

Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the United States District presides over the trial and decides to reach a verdict. There will be no jury. Both parties assume that Burroughs will not have the word of the end because any verdict must be the subject of an almost certain call. Eventually, the case could reach the Supreme Court.

Scheduled to last at least three weeks, the trial gives a new twist to an old controversy. In several previous major cases, white plaintiffs have been sued for challenging a positive action on admission. This time, Americans of Asian descent are at the center of the fight.

The trial will also bring a range of Harvard officials to the witness stand in a show that promises to shed light on rare information about confessions that are usually a mystery to students and parents around the world. Each year, Harvard and other selective schools promise a "global exam" of all candidates, reviewing grades, test results, transcripts, recommendations, family history and other information, including race and ethnicity.

[Before Asian Americans sued Harvard, the school once tried restricting the number of Jews]

But most candidates do not really know what it means.

Some of the details in the essay could shed a positive light on Harvard, explaining the many layers of exams he gives to more than 40,000 cases a year before making almost 2,000 offers of admission.

Some might be unflattering. The preliminary phase of the lawsuit revealed that Harvard had received internal warnings about a possible bias against Americans of Asian descent in recent years, but apparently did nothing to follow up.

Lee said Monday that an internal report on potential misconceptions in 2013 was incomplete and preliminary and that senior officials who had reviewed it saw "no reason to alarm".

The complaint, filed in 2014, also revealed extremely sensitive summaries of the substantial benefit that Harvard provides to candidates who are recruited athletes, children of alumni and others who deserve special attention. Other information should be revealed during the trial thanks to evidence gathered from Harvard officials in preliminary depositions that have so far been kept under seal.

Unless there is an unexpected change in strategy, the plaintiff's lawyers do not intend to summon Americans of Asian descent who claim to have been victimized by Harvard. Some alleged victims have made preliminary depositions under oath, but their identity remains anonymous.

However, some Harvard students and graduates of Asian-American descent have the intention to testify in favor of the university's admission policy and its objectives in matters of of diversity. Civil rights advocates also plan to call on African-American and Latino students to testify to the importance of racial awareness on campus.

"Just like race, racial diversity continues to matter," said Geneviève Bonadies Torres of the Committee of Lawyers for the Respect of Civil Rights by Law.

The complainant alleges that Harvard annually develops a specific racial balance in the admission offers, which confers an unfair advantage on low-skilled candidates from other groups. The Applicant also alleges that Harvard places too much emphasis on race and does not fully respect the Supreme Court's mandate to consider race-neutral solutions to a diverse class.

Harvard denies all allegations and asserts that it considers race only in a limited way, following judicial precedents dating back to the 1970s that cited the university's methods with approval. The university says that race-related admissions are essential to ensure that students are exposed to different points of view.

William R. Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions at Harvard since 1986, was the first witness. The plaintiff's lawyer, John M. Hughes, asked him to explain an internal document showing that the university treats white and Asian students in American high schools differently when sending recruiting letters. The paper showed that Americans of Asian descent often had higher standardized test scores on average than peers from other racial groups to receive a letter encouraging promising students to think of Harvard.

"It's racial discrimination, clear and simple," said Hughes.

Not so, replied Fitzsimmons. "We are just trying to reach people from all over the country."

The complaint was filed in November 2014 and was conducted by Edward Blum, a well-known racial opposition opponent in university admissions, who is white. Distinguished schools of the Ivy League and elsewhere have filed briefs in favor of Harvard, a sign of the seriousness of the record of higher education. The Trump administration sided with the plaintiff.

In addition, the Department of Justice has opened civil rights investigations into complaints that Harvard and Yale discriminate against Americans of Asian descent. Both universities deny these allegations.

The last time the High Court ruled on positive admission measures, in 2016, it had just championed a racial awareness policy at the University of Texas. But the deciding vote in this decision, Judge Anthony M. Kennedy, has since retired. The recent arrival of Justice Kennedy, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, has strengthened the Conservative majority of the court and could be a new approach if it revises the issue.

Read more:

While Harvard's admission policy is under trial, alleged victims of racial prejudice remain anonymous

"We are here to say no": American critics of Asian origin rally against Harvard admission policy

How Harvard sets the pattern for positive action in admission

How to protect Harvard admission secrets? The judge says it's like protecting the "Coca-Cola recipe".