An attorney for Harvard University insisted the Ivy League institution did not discriminate against Asian American applicants during oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Monday even as he acknowledged that the institution gave those applicants a lower personality score.
The case, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, was the second of two the Supreme Court heard Monday challenging the constitutionality of affirmative action in college admissions and specifically asks the court to overrule its 2003 precedent in Grutter v. Bollinger, which allows colleges to use race on a limited basis when considering applications.
<mediadc-video-embed data-state="{"cms.site.owner":{"_ref":"00000161-3486-d333-a9e9-76c6fbf30000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b93390000"},"cms.content.publishDate":1667246878441,"cms.content.publishUser":{"_ref":"0000017c-b7e3-d26e-affc-fff3c2490000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"cms.content.updateDate":1667246878441,"cms.content.updateUser":{"_ref":"0000017c-b7e3-d26e-affc-fff3c2490000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"rawHtml":"
var _bp = _bp||[]; _bp.push({ "div": "Brid_67246872", "obj": {"id":"27789","width":"16","height":"9","video":"1128723"} }); ","_id":"00000184-2fa8-d5ff-a7af-3fff654c0000","_type":"2f5a8339-a89a-3738-9cd2-3ddf0c8da574"}”>Video Embed
JUSTICE JACKSON ‘WORRIED ABOUT’ MINORITIES IF SUPREME COURT UNDOES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
The court’s newest member, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, has recused herself from the case and did not participate in oral arguments due to her previous service as a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers. However, Jackson did participate in oral arguments for the similar case Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, which the court heard prior to the Harvard case.
During the two-hour oral argument, Justice Samuel Alito grilled Harvard attorney Seth Waxman on the university’s procedures for assigning lower personal scores on integrity, kindness, and confidence to Asian American applicants, which Students for Fair Admissions contends has been used to justify limiting university admissions from the demographic group.
“The record shows that Asian American student applicants get the lowest personal scores of any other group. What accounts for that?” Alito asked Waxman. “It has to be one of two things. It has to be that they really do lack integrity, courage, kindness, and empathy to the same degree as students of other races, or there has to be something wrong with this personal score.”
Affirmative action advocates rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court as justices heard oral arguments on two cases on whether colleges and universities can continue to consider race as a factor in admissions decisions Oct. 31, 2022.Waxman attempted to downplay the significance of the score, saying that it was only used “as a matter of triage” to sort out the thousands of applications Harvard receives.
“One of the 40 admissions officers goes through and gives these numerical numbers. It is not considered in any way,” Waxman told the justice. “Once the subcommittees and committees meet, it ‘fades into the background.’ It is not the basis of admissions decisions.”
Harvard claims that it must consider race as a limited factor in determining admissions in order to achieve a racially diverse student body, claiming that such diversity was necessary to enhance the educational experience at the Ivy League school.
“The evidence and findings in this case confirm what this court has long recognized: that a university student body comprising a multiplicity of backgrounds, experiences, and interests vitally benefits our nation,” Waxman said in his opening statement. “Student body diversity makes our businesses more innovative and globally competitive, our scientists more creative, our medical professionals more effective, and our military more cohesive.”
Affirmative action advocates rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court as justices heard oral arguments on two cases on whether colleges and universities can continue to consider race as a factor in admissions decisions Oct. 31, 2022.The justices, Waxman, Students for Fair Admissions attorney Cameron Norris, and Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar repeatedly quibbled over how racial diversity could be achieved through a racially neutral admissions process, with Waxman and Prelogar repeatedly indicating that such a process could not be achieved, even though it would be preferable. The court’s ruling in Grutter specifically indicated schools should attempt to find a racially neutral means to achieve racial diversity.
In his closing statement rebutting the arguments of Prelogar and Waxman, Norris criticized Harvard for “thumb[ing] its nose at Grutter for 14 years,” and he noted that the university did not even consider the possibility of alternative racially neutral admissions processes until after Students for Fair Admissions filed its lawsuit.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“Racial classifications themselves have harms,” Norris said. “They stigmatize their intended beneficiaries, they increase racial consciousness, which delays the day in which we can move to true racial neutrality, and they cause resentment by treating people differently based on something they can’t change. It’s cosmetic and it’s irrelevant to their ability to get educational opportunities.”
The two cases challenging affirmative action are among the most high profile that the 6-3 conservative majority Supreme Court will hear this term. A decision is not expected to be released until the spring of 2023.
