Trump administration backs Asian-Americans in Harvard case




  • In World/Europe
  • 2018-08-30 16:49:56Z
  • By Maria Danilova, Collin Binkley and Eric Tucker, Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department on Thursday sided with Asian-American students suing Harvard University over the Ivy League school's consideration of race in its admissions policy, the latest step in the Trump administration's effort to encourage race-neutral admissions practices.

The Justice Department said in a court filing Thursday that the school has failed to demonstrate that it does not discriminate on the basis of race and cited what it described as "substantial evidence that Harvard is engaging in outright racial balancing."

The department's "statement of interest" was in a case filed in 2014 by Students For Fair Admission, which argues that one of the world's most prestigious universities discriminates against academically strong Asian-American applicants. Harvard fired back, saying that it does not discriminate and will fight to defend its right to use race as a factor in admissions.

The Supreme Court permits colleges and universities to consider race in admissions decisions, but says it must be done in a narrowly tailored way to promote diversity and should be limited in time. Universities also bear the burden of showing why their consideration of race is appropriate.

But in Harvard's case, Justice Department officials said, the university hasn't explained how it uses race in admissions and has not adopted meaningful criteria to limit the use of race.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, "No American should be denied admission to school because of their race."

Harvard said it was disappointed by the Justice Department's "recycling the same misleading and hollow arguments that prove nothing more than the emptiness of the case against Harvard."

"Harvard does not discriminate against applicants from any group, and will continue to vigorously defend the legal right of every college and university to consider race as one factor among many in college admissions, which the Supreme Court has consistently upheld for more than 40 years," the university said in a statement. "Colleges and universities must have the freedom and flexibility to create the diverse communities that are vital to the learning experience of every student."

Sessions argued the school's use of a "personal rating," which includes highly subjective factors such as being a "good person" or "likeability," may be biased against Asian-Americans. Sessions said the school admits that it scores Asian-American applicants lower on personal rating than other students. Sessions also argued that Harvard admissions officers monitor and manipulate the racial makeup of incoming classes.

Edward Blum, president of SFFA, hailed the administration's action. "We look forward to having the gravely troubling evidence that Harvard continues to keep redacted disclosed to the American public in the near future," he said.

The Justice Department's court filing opposes Harvard's request to dismiss the lawsuit before trial.

"Harvard's failure to provide meaningful criteria to cabin its voluntary use of race, its use of a personal rating that significantly harms Asian-American applicants' chances of admission and may be infected with racial bias, and the substantial evidence that Harvard is engaging in outright racial balancing each warrant denial of Harvard's Motion for Summary Judgment," the department said in the filing.

The department is separately investigating Harvard's admissions policies, a probe that could also result in a lawsuit.

The filing follows a July decision by the Justice and Education departments to abandon Obama-era guidelines that instructed universities to consider race in their admissions process to make the student body more diverse. Democrats criticized the decision, saying that the Trump administration was taking away protections for minorities.

Civil rights advocates blasted the administration's filing.

"The Trump administration again put itself on the wrong side of history ... contrasting its positions with more than four decades of clear and consistent Supreme Court precedent," said Catherine Lhamon, the top civil rights official at the Education Department under the Obama administration.

______

Binkley reported from Boston.

COMMENTS

More Related News

School board in Virginia may end transgender bathroom ban
School board in Virginia may end transgender bathroom ban

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) - For nearly four years, Gavin Grimm has been suing his former school district after it banned him from using the boys bathrooms in high school.

California 'definitely and imminently' suing over Trump emergency declaration, state AG says
California 'definitely and imminently' suing over Trump emergency declaration, state AG says

"It's clear that this isn't an emergency," Becerra said. "In the mind of Donald Trump he needs to do something to try to fulfill a campaign promise."

Supreme Court will rule on Trump administration's effort to add question on citizenship to 2020 Census
Supreme Court will rule on Trump administration's effort to add question on citizenship to 2020 Census

The Trump administration's controversial effort to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 Census will be decided by the Supreme Court.

Make El Chapo pay for a border wall? Don
Make El Chapo pay for a border wall? Don't count on it

NEW YORK (AP) - After El Chapo's conviction in a drug-trafficking trial that included florid testimony of jewel-encrusted guns, a fleet of cash-laden jets and a personal zoo with roaming big cats, some Americans have floated an idea they see as poetic justice: Why not take some of the Mexican drug lord's billions in ill-gotten gains and make him pay for a border wall?

Indonesia land-burning fines unpaid years after fires
Indonesia land-burning fines unpaid years after fires
  • World
  • 2019-02-15 12:52:14Z

The 10 palm oil and pulp wood companies involved in fires owe more than $220 million in fines and the figure for unpaid penalties for environmental destruction swells to $1.3 billion when an illegal logging case from 2013 is included, according to separate summaries of the cases compiled by Greenpeace

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: Europe

facebook
Hit "Like"
Don't miss any important news
Thanks, you don't need to show me this anymore.