Boston judge permits lawsuit against Harvard to go forward

In a closely watched case that could influence affirmative action practices in college admissions decisions, a federal judge on Friday rejected a motion from Harvard University to rule in its favor. The university faces a lawsuit on the basis of discrimination against Asia-American applicants. The trial is set to begin on Oct. 15.

Brian Snyder/Reuters/File
One of the 25 gates to Harvard Yard is open at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. A federal judge in Boston has ruled that a lawsuit charging the university discriminates against Asian-American applicants be permitted to proceed to trial on Oct. 15.

A federal judge on Friday cleared the way for a lawsuit accusing Harvard University of discriminating against Asian-American applicants to go to trial, a closely watched case that could influence the use of race in college admissions decisions.

US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston rejected dueling motions by Harvard and a nonprofit group suing the Ivy League university to rule in their favor ahead of a non-jury trial set to begin on Oct. 15.

The ruling came after the US Justice Department, which has been investigating Harvard for potential civil rights violations over its affirmative action policy, in August threw its support behind the 2014 lawsuit by Students for Fair Admissions Inc (SFFA).

The group, headed by prominent anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, has alleged that Harvard's admissions process, which factors in race, significantly disadvantages Asian-Americans compared with other groups.

Judge Burroughs wrote that rather than presenting her with undisputed facts and evidence that would allow her to rule without overseeing a trial, Harvard and SFFA had filed motions that were "essentially mirror images of one another."

"Whether SFFA may prove its intentional discrimination claim requires a close review of the conflicting expert testimony, the available documents, and the testimony of the admissions office employees in the context of a trial," Burroughs wrote.

Harvard in a statement said it does not discriminate against Asian-Americans and looked forward to defending itself at trial.

Mr. Blum declined to comment.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that universities may use affirmative action to help minority applicants get into college. Conservatives have said such programs can hurt whites as well as Asian-Americans.

In court papers, SFFA claimed an Asian-American male applicant with a 25 percent chance of admission would have a 35 percent chance if he were white, 75 percent chance if he were Hispanic and 95 percent chance if he were black.

Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Harvard has denied that it uses a quota system or has engaged in "racial balancing." It has criticized the lawsuit as an effort to attack the right of colleges to consider race as an admissions factor.

After President Trump, a Republican, took office last year, the Justice Department began investigating whether Harvard's policies are discriminatory because they limit Asian-Americans' acceptance.

Yale University on Wednesday announced that the Justice Department was also investigating it over similar claims. The university denied discriminating against Asian-Americans. 

This story was reported by Reuters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Boston judge permits lawsuit against Harvard to go forward
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today