Case pits individual rights against societal goals
The Department of Justice weighed in on the litigation about Harvard’s admissions policy, asserting that those procedures are biased against Asian-Americans.
It would be easy for Harvard and its fans to dismiss this filing because it comes from the Trump administration, but I have read the document and it seems pretty well-founded.
There seems little doubt that Harvard tilted its admissions process against Asian-Americans. At this point, Harvard even seems to concede that it did so. Instead, it argues that it was justified in this discrimination because it had bigger fish to fry. Specifically, it claims that the elusive goal of balancing its entering class to its preferred racial composition justifies this conduct. The Justice Department contends it has other, raceneutral ways to accomplish this same goal.
I cannot predict what the judge will do. These are complicated legal issues and the case may very well get dismissed. But the underlying problem does not go away.
At what point are we willing to sacrifice individuals in order to achieve societal goals? Harvard and its supporters claim that rectification of prior discrimination against certain groups — principally African-Americans and Hispanics — justifies what they do. This is very little comfort to the individuals who otherwise would have been admitted and whose forebears cannot even be credibly claimed to be responsible for past practices. Indeed, history tells us they were generally victims.
Further, the defense would sound a bit more principled if Harvard hadn’t disguised its discrimination by claiming that Asian-Americans seem to be less likable or don’t have positive personalities. That kind of subterfuge strongly suggests that Harvard knew that what it was doing was wrong. Even worse, it recalls other groups — such as Jews, Italians and Irish — who suffered from the same type of discrimination in the past, often justified by the same kind of assertions that they just “wouldn’t fit in.”
Harvard should stop weaseling. It should admit its past practices and live or die by its justification. Then we as a society can confront the choice between individual rights and group rights.
One other thing Harvard has to confront: It has tried to have its cake and eat it, too. In multiple documents, Harvard has officially agreed not to discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin. It does so to reap as many federal dollars as it can. It seems Harvard is not willing to proclaim the very principles it now espouses are so important.