A US judge has found problems with the Asian Americans’ case against Harvard’s “racist” admissions policies.
Reuters reports that a federal judge has raised issues regarding the case against Harvard’s “racist” admissions process.
The initial case involved a lawsuit against the Ivy League college for “engaging in racial balancing, uses race as far more than a ‘plus’ factor, and has no interest in exploring race-neutral alternatives”. Non-profit group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) are leading the lawsuit.
Last November, Harvard was accused of limiting the number of Asian Americans admitted into the university. The US Justice Department threatened to sue the university if the institution failed to hand over certain records.
Although Harvard, rejected all allegations of any racial bias in their administration process, even the Trump administration supported the lawsuit against the college.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston heard a final round of arguments in the case, which could impact other US colleges in similar situations.
Burroughs questioned why SFFA did not call any students to the trial who claimed Harvard rejected them due to their race.
The judge questioned what should be made of SFFA’s statistics that showed Asian Americans being penalised on a subjective “personal” rating measuring likability.
“They have the victim problem, but you guys have that personal rating,” Burroughs said.
SFFA claims Harvard engaged in “racial balancing” by keeping Asian American admissions under 20% per year.
The case could reach the US Supreme Court according to legal experts, potentially allowing the new five-member conservative majority a chance to bar affirmative action.
“The law and common sense tell us skin color has nothing to do with your personal qualities or likability,” Adam Mortara, SFFA’s lawyer said.
William Lee, a lawyer for Harvard, argued SFFA’s goal was to “change the law” resulting in a “drastic” drop in black and Hispanic students on campus.
“That result would be wrong legally,” he said. “It would be wrong morally.”
