Preferential Treatment at Harvard
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin by postsecondary educational institutions that receive federal financial assistance. The regulations implementing the Act prohibit a recipient of federal funds from utilizing criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin. In July 2023, the Chica Project, African Community Economic Development of New England, and Greater Boston Latino Network filed a complaint (#01-23-2231) with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, that alleged Harvard University engages in such discrimination.
The Chica Project is a Massachusetts nonprofit organization that provides educational benefits to women of color. The African Community Economic Development of New England is a Boston-based nonprofit organization that fosters academic development of African refugees and immigrants. The Greater Boston Latino Network is a collective of community organizations that addresses under-representation of the Latinx community in Boston.
At issue is Harvard’s practice of granting special preference to students applying for admission whose relatives attended the university or who are donors. The complainants claim that students benefiting from these preferences are predominately Caucasian and frequently less qualified than minority applicants who do not qualify for the preferences. The preferences in the complainants’ view have the detrimental effect of excluding academically superior minority students for admission. It is the position of the complainants that Harvard’s failure to end the preferences constitutes a denial of equal protection to highly qualified minority students. They argue that Harvard’s use of the preferences creates a significant, disparate impact on minority students that is not justified by educational necessity.
To support their allegations, the complainants state that 70 percent of donor-related and legacy applicants are Caucasian. They further state that the proportion of students accepted under the preferences constitutes up to 15 percent of Harvard’s admitted students. In addition, the complainants report that donor-related and legacy applicants are six to seven times more likely to be admitted than applicants ineligible for the preferences. Moreover, the complainants contend that the preferences are granted without regard to the applicants’ credentials or merits. Such factors applied to students ineligible for preferences include standardized test scores, transcripts, extracurricular activities, athletics, awards, teacher and guidance counselor recommendations, personal statements, and additional supplemental essays or academic material. According to the complainants, experts have estimated that roughly three-quarters of Caucasian students accepted under the preferences would have been rejected but for the legacy and/or donor relationship. Finally, the complainants state legacy and donor applicants are nearly 20 times more likely to be interviewed by a member of Harvard’s admissions office.
Emerging from the complainant’s charge is the theory that a postsecondary educational institution may not discriminate through inaction. Harvard has declined to address the racial imbalance of students admitted under the preferences. The complainants view the policy as a barrier to open admissions, a deterrent to equal educational opportunity. Underlying this is the position that federally assisted institutions of higher education have a legal obligation to do all within their power to equalize educational opportunity for all students applying for admission.
The U. S. Department of Education is authorized to refer Harvard to the U. S. Department of Justice for enforcement action if the university is found in violation of Title VI and refuses to take corrective action. This could result in a penalty of withholding of federal funding for university programming.