Help Us Stay Paywall-Free

We rely on readers to keep our website open to all. Help sustain a public space for collective reasoning and imagination—make a tax-deductible donation today.

Image: Wikimedia

January 29, 2022

Are Harvard’s Admissions Practices Racist?

–and other questions, as the controversial case is set to go before the Supreme Court.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court announced that they will hear the controversial case regarding Harvard’s admissions practices discriminating against Asian Americans. This comes seven years after Students for Fair Admissions first filed their lawsuit against Harvard, and more than two years since a judge ruled in Harvard’s favor and the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision.

Digging into the 700 pages of statistical testimony filled, Andrew Gelman, Sharad Goel, and Daniel E. Ho examine the evidence on both sides while cautioning that the core disagreements can’t be resolved by solely crunching numbers. Indeed, while FFA’s stated goal is to end affirmative action, this is not the same as Harvard’s particular admissions policies. “The substantive legal and policy questions here have more to do with potential anti-Asian bias than with affirmative action itself,” they write. “Even if SFFA is right that Harvard’s admissions practices are biased against Asians, that does not mean affirmative action itself is to blame.” 

Nevertheless, affirmative action writ large will face the chopping block come October, as the conservative Court continues its culture war. This issue has appeared regularly in BR’s pages, with esteemed lawyers such as Randall L. Kennedy and the late Lani Guinier offering erudite defenses and reimaginings of affirmative action, respectively. In a 2000 forum that saw responses from Howard Gardner, Ward Connerly, and others, Guinier and her coauthor Susan Sturm predicted that affirmative action would have a short lifespan. But rather than mourning it, they acknowledged that it offers “a narrow, at-the-margins response to exclusion,” and instead strived to “focus attention on developing a long-term, normative vision of racial justice” that is inseparable from challenging conceptions of merit.

Merit, standardized testing, and more appear elsewhere in today’s reading list, with philosophers and educators pondering if and how they might be redeemed. But we’ll leave the last word with civil rights lawyer Richard Ford, who believes that these debates miss the point. He argues that there is a deeper problem at play in the Harvard case and other recent admissions scandals: the presumption that elitism could ever be democratized. “The demand for an equal opportunity to elite status is almost a contradiction in terms,” Ford wrote in our Spring 2019 book, Racist Logic. Even if the discontent around admissions reflects broader anxieties about class status, “fighting to revise selective university admissions policy is not the most promising way to address them.”

Richard Ford

Elitism can't be democratized.

Andrew Gelman, Sharad Goel, Daniel E. Ho

A group seeking to ban affirmative action has sued Harvard for discriminating against Asian Americans. The core issues won't be resolved by statistics alone.

Lani Guinier, Susan Sturm
We need to situate the conversation about race, gender, and affirmative action in a wider account of democratic opportunity.
Agnes Callard

Two new books take aim at the moral failures of meritocracy. But we can advocate for a more just society without giving up on merit.

Andra Gillespie, Randall L. Kennedy

An interview with Randall Kennedy.

Richard V. Reeves

Focusing on the top 1 percent is a mistake. The real class divide is between the upper middle class—the top 20 percent—and the rest of America.

Jeffrey Aaron Snyder

By and large, admissions tests register rather than create inequality.

Lelac Almagor

I was still in college the first time someone cried in a parent-teacher conference with me.

Heather C. McGhee, Archon Fung
A conversation with Heather C. McGhee about the zero-sum thinking that has long dominated American attitudes to race and wealth—and how to organize to secure public goods for everyone.
Marshall Steinbaum

When college is a prerequisite for getting a job that pays better than minimum wage, we cannot stop until it is free and accessible to all.

Our weekly themed Reading Lists compile the best of Boston Review’s archive. Sign up for our newsletters to get them straight to your inbox before they appear online.

Boston Review is nonprofit and reader funded.

We believe in the power of collective reasoning and imagination to create a more just world. That’s why we’re committed to keeping our website free and open to everyone, regardless of ability to pay. But we can’t do it without the financial support of our readers.

Help sustain a public space for collective reasoning and imagination, without ads or paywalls:

Become a supporting reader today.

Get Our Newsletter

Sign up to get vital reading on politics, literature, and more sent straight to your inbox.

Most Recent

Israel's weaponization of images since October 7 obfuscates its genocidal campaign against Palestinians.

Ariella Azoulay
Thad Williamson

On the situation in Germany in the wake of October 7.

Just in time for the holidays, get any three print issues of Boston Review for just $35 – that’s 40% off the cover price!

Before December 9, mix and match any three issues for one low price using code 3FOR35.

Just in time for the holidays, get any three print issues of Boston Review for just $35 – that’s 40% off the cover price!

Before December 9, mix and match any three issues for one low price using code 3FOR35.

"An indispensable pillar of the public sphere."

That’s what sociologist Alondra Nelson says of Boston Review. Independent and nonprofit, we believe in the power of collective reasoning and imagination to create a more just world.

That’s why there are no paywalls on our website, but we can’t do it without the support of our readers. Please make a tax-deductible donation to help us create a more inclusive and egalitarian public sphere—open to everyone, regardless of ability to pay.