The Corner

Law & the Courts

Race Discrimination at Harvard, Part 1

Widener Library on the campus of Harvard University (jorgeantonio/Getty Images)

In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court sanctioned the narrow use of racial preferences in college admissions, provided such use was merely one factor — and not a determinative one — in the admissions-evaluation process. Race was to be but “a feather on the scale.”

Many believe that’s how it actually operates. Indeed, when I ask college or law-school audiences how much of a factor they believe race plays in determining an applicant’s probability of admission, most respondents estimate it accounts for between five and ten points on a 100-point scale. But at most of the nation’s colleges, race is not a feather on the scale, but an anvil.

Evidence adduced in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard confirms that race wasn’t merely “one factor among many” or a “feather on the scale.” Rather, race was determinative for at least 45 percent of all admitted black and Hispanic applicants.

For perspective on just how determinative race was in the admissions process compared to factors such as grades, SAT scores, etc., consider that for Harvard’s black applicants, the mere fact of their race has a weight comparable to scoring a “1” on the more relevant measures of academics, extracurriculars, and personal rating. How often does the average Harvard applicant score a “1” on those measures? Only 0.45 percent of Harvard applicants score a “1” on academics; 0.31 percent score a “1” on extracurriculars; and only 0.03 percent score a “1” on personal rating. In other words, just the prospective Einstein or Mozart.

In her 2oo3 Grutter opinion, Justice O’Connor stated, “the Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” For those keeping score at home, that would be 2028 — just six years from now.

But we’re entering the third generation of affirmative action in college admissions. At this pace, even with preferences as profound as those used by Harvard, we’ve got several decades to go before O’Connor’s expectation has even the slightest chance of being realized.

Peter Kirsanow — Peter N. Kirsanow is an attorney and a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Exit mobile version