In what at first glance seems a big blow to colorblind equality under the law, federal district Judge Allison Burroughs has ruled that Harvard University’s admittedly “race conscious admissions” pass constitutional muster even though the result disfavors Asian Americans.
Burroughs, an Obama appointee, acknowledges that “Asian Americans would likely be admitted at a higher rate than white applicants if admissions decisions were made based solely on the academic and extracurricular ratings.” Instead, they are admitted at a lower rate than white and black applicants, and at a significantly lower rate than applicants of other races with similar paper qualifications.
“There is no evidence,” she wrote, “of any racial animus whatsoever or intentional discrimination on the part of Harvard beyond its use of a race conscious admissions policy.”
Read that again. “Beyond its use of a race conscious admissions policy.” In other words, if we ignore the fact that the policy is “race conscious,” we will therefore find no racial animus. Who knew? That’s almost like saying that if we ignore the fact that grass is green, we can decide that grass isn’t green.
Isn’t double talk fun?
Much, much more can and will be written upon closer analysis of this wrongly reasoned decision. For now, let us lament the Orwellian nature of the logic and language used by the judge — and lament the harm done to those Asian American applicants who continue to lose their rightful shot at the huge career benefits that tend to accrue, whether deservedly or not, to those who possess a Harvard diploma.
