Teacher input contributes to Asian-American applicants’ lower personal ratings, a central point in the university’s discrimination trial

A rally on Sunday ahead of the Harvard discrimination trial, which began Monday and is scheduled to last three weeks.

A rally on Sunday ahead of the Harvard discrimination trial, which began Monday and is scheduled to last three weeks. PHOTO: BRIAN SNYDER/REUTERS

49 COMMENTS

By Melissa Korn and Nicole Hong

Oct. 16, 2018 4:17 p.m. ET

BOSTON—Harvard’s admissions dean testified Tuesday that weaker teacher and guidance-counselor recommendations are one reason why Asian-American applicants as a group score lower than white applicants in the “personal rating” portion of the school’s admissions process.

The rating, which assesses an applicant’s personal qualities, has been a central focus for the plaintiffs in a trial that began Monday accusing Harvard of intentionally discriminating against Asian-Americans. Harvard’s own data show Asian-American applicants as a group score higher than white applicants in academics and extracurriculars, but lower in the personal rating.

William Fitzsimmons, who has been Harvard’s admissions dean since 1986, said in federal court Tuesday that the lower rating wasn’t due to Asian-American applicants having fewer attractive personal qualities than white applicants. He said one reason for the gap could be due to “somewhat stronger” teacher and guidance-counselor recommendations given to white applicants.

He said he didn’t know if Asian-American applicants had weaker recommendations than African-American or Hispanic applicants. The plaintiffs say Asian-Americans have the lowest personal scores of any racial group.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee, will decide after the three-week trial whether Harvard’s admissions practices violate federal civil-rights law. Whether the judge accepts Mr. Fitzsimmons’s explanation could play a role in her decision. Harvard says its policies adhere to Supreme Court precedents.

The trial stems from a lawsuit filed in 2014 by Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit whose members include Asian-Americans rejected by Harvard. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have pushed Harvard to explain the racial gap in personal ratings, which they say is evidence of intentional discrimination. Harvard has said admissions officers don’t consider race in the personal rating.

The rating, according to Harvard, uses teacher recommendations, alumni interviews and student essays to consider whether an applicant will be a good roommate or could contribute to the campus community. Harvard’s admissions procedures ask readers to look for “consistent testimony of an applicant’s unusual effervescence, charity, maturity, or strength of character.”

A chart displayed during Harvard’s opening statement showed teacher recommendations and alumni interviewer ratings matter much more in admissions decisions than race does.

The school has stressed throughout the litigation that each applicant is reviewed independently, and patterns across racial or ethnic groups aren’t the result of any broader discriminatory practice.

The gap between white and Asian-American applicants’ personal ratings was also cited in a 1990 report by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which investigated Harvard for similar complaints. The report, referenced at length in Tuesday’s testimony, found Harvard didn’t discriminate against Asian-American applicants, but flagged racial stereotypes reflected in admissions officers’ comments.

Harvard’s admissions readers, who evaluate students’ applications, “quite often” described Asian-American applicants as shy, science- and math-oriented, and hard workers, the report said. One reader, for instance, wrote of an applicant: “He’s quiet and, of course, wants to be a doctor.”

A lawyer for Harvard said the decades-old remarks reflect only a fraction of admission reader comments. Mr. Fitzsimmons testified: “We abhor stereotypical comments. This is not part of our process.”

A plaintiffs’ lawyer asked Mr. Fitzsimmons whether he raised concerns about any improper use of race in the admissions process with individual readers after the 1990 report. Mr. Fitzsimmons said the admissions staff studied the report carefully to ensure they “did not engage in any racial stereotyping but rather looked carefully at the evidence in each application.”

In a June court filing, the plaintiffs said some admissions readers still make such comments. “Asian-Americans are described as smart and hardworking yet uninteresting and indistinguishable from other Asian-American applicants,” they wrote.

The plaintiffs also used the Office for Civil Rights report to accuse Harvard of ignoring for decades the possible influence of race in the personal rating.

The 1990 report pointed to discrepancies in how readers considered an applicant’s race—whether it was considered only as a potential bonus during committee discussions, or throughout the admissions process in all ratings. Mr. Fitzsimmons testified Tuesday that the role of race in Harvard’s admissions process has been generally unchanged since the report.

“There are no formulas or specific criteria for measuring or assessing ethnicity, nor are there instructions for determining how much weight is given to ethnicity, or where the weight is to be applied in the admissions process,” the report said.

Mr. Fitzsimmons said every admissions officer “is always vigilant” that race and ethnicity are “used in the proper way.”

The plaintiffs said race is the “determinative factor” for approximately half of African-Americans and one-third of Hispanics admitted. They pointed to Harvard’s own report that showed eliminating the consideration of race would cut the percentage of African-Americans admitted to 6% from 14% and the percentage of Hispanics admitted to 9% from 14%.

Mr. Fitzsimmons said race “made a difference” in whether some of those applicants were admitted, but it is never used in isolation from other factors in the admissions process.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4108575&forum_id=2#37039916)

clicked the thread to say this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4108575&forum_id=2#37070421)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4108575&forum_id=2#37045400)

He said he didn’t know if Asian-American applicants had weaker recommendations than African-American or Hispanic applicants...”

“30-year tenure dean of admissions for world’s most prestigious university embroiled in public policy-defining, international news-making litigation here. nope, didn’t occur to me to cross-reference that data.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4108575&forum_id=2#37039936)

WTF? Why didn't the plaintiffs get a jury trial? There's no chance this guy rules against Harvard. Maybe they see this as just a stop on the way to the appellate courts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4108575&forum_id=2#37040297)

Edit: apparently she is one of the judges that blocked trumps immigration order

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4108575&forum_id=2#37040310)

It's also b/c when you express some of these views publicly you're branded as a "racist"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4108575&forum_id=2#37070602)

He's just like all the other fucking asians!

(Nigger has a 670 math SAT and started a club that does nothing)

Oh what a scholar!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4108575&forum_id=2#37071195)