WASHINGTON (CN) — A group of civil rights attorneys filed a civil rights complaint against Harvard College on Monday, saying the Ivy League school is creating a whiter campus by giving a leg up to children of its alumni and donors in the admissions process — a practice that has come under intense scrutiny following the Supreme Court’s decision against affirmative action last week.
So-called "legacy applicants" are six times more likely to be admitted than non-legacy applicants, and those with familial ties to donors are seven times more likely, according to the complaint filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights. That disparity makes a big difference for a school that only admitted 3.4% of applicants for the incoming class of 2027.
Saying the admissions policy disproportionately benefits wealthy, white applicants, the civil rights group accused Harvard of violating the same statute the high court ruled is thwarted by race-based policies, and called for an investigation by the U.S. Department of Education.
Michael Kippins, a litigation fellow with Lawyers for Civil Rights, said in a statement announcing the complaint that the practice is not only unfair but also an obstacle to creating a multicultural space on campus.
“Harvard’s practice of giving a leg-up to the children of wealthy donors and alumni — who have done nothing to deserve it — must end,” Kippins said. “This preferential treatment overwhelmingly goes to white applicants and harms efforts to diversify.”
Nearly 70% of legacy applicants are white. While many have strong academic and extracurricular activities, the average admitted legacy student is weaker than the average typical student, according to a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The study authors estimated that if Harvard did away with legacy preferences, three-quarters of white legacy applicants would not have been admitted.
A Harvard spokesperson declined to comment on the complaint and instead pointed to a statement the school released following the Supreme Court’s decision last week reaffirming its belief in creating a diverse student body.
“Harvard must always be a place of opportunity, a place whose doors remain open to those to whom they had long been closed, a place where many will have the chance to live dreams their parents or grandparents could not have dreamed,” the school said.
Gutting affirmative action efforts at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court on June 29 ruled that the race-based policies violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
The 6-3 ruling exposed sharp differences in the court’s view on race, with Justice Clarence Thomas, a George H. W. Bush appointee, writing in his concurring opinion that the U.S. Constitution is colorblind and provides equal protection for all Americans regardless of race. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, disagreed, arguing in her dissent that ignoring the history of racism in this country only helps widen the gaps between races.
Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights, highlighted the conservative majority’s opinion and argued that if admission officers can’t consider a potential student’s racial background, there’s no reason they should be allowed to consider who their parents are.
"There’s no birthright to Harvard,” Espinoza-Madrigal said in a statement on Monday. “Your family’s last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process.”
Several schools around the country have ended legacy preferences, including Johns Hopkins University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California, Berkeley.
Follow @Ryan_Knappy
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
Ambulance too late May 17, 2024
