The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund has issued a formal rebuke of Harvard University over new admissions guidance that bars alumni interviewers from referencing an applicant’s race in written evaluations, calling the policy “unlawful and discriminatory.”In a December 23 letter addressed to Harvard President Alan M. Garber, Harvard Corporation Senior Fellow Penny S. Pritzker, and Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons, the civil rights group criticised recent updates to the university’s alumni interview handbook.
What the new interview guidance says
The updated guidance instructs interviewers not to include information about an applicant’s race or ethnicity in their reports. According to the Harvard Crimson, interviewers were also told during training sessions to avoid mentioning an applicant’s religion, languages spoken, or involvement in racial organisations. Instead, they were advised to use general terms such as “affinity groups” or “faith events,” with the warning that reports could be discarded if they did not comply.
Dispute over Supreme Court ruling
The Legal Defense Fund argued that the changes were not required by the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which struck down race-conscious admissions policies but allowed universities to consider how race has shaped an applicant’s experiences.In the letter, the organisation said Harvard’s approach conflicts with that ruling and could violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. It argued that the policy disproportionately affects applicants who are more likely to discuss race and discrimination in their application materials.“Because Harvard’s policy mandates the disproportionate censorship and distortion of the stories of students who are Black, people of color, or immigrants of color, Harvard is now likely engaged in racial and national origin discrimination and must immediately rescind this unlawful and discriminatory policy,” wrote Janai S. Nelson, president and director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund, Crimson reports.
Harvard response and compliance rationale
A spokesperson for Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences did not respond to requests for comment, according to the Crimson.During one admissions training session, Harvard Associate Director of Admissions Maeve U. Hoffstot said the changes were intended to demonstrate compliance with the law. “This will help us continue to prove time and time again that we are absolutely complying by this law and really not considering race, ethnicity, or national origin in admissions,” she said, as quoted by the Crimson.
Research cited by the Legal Defense Fund
The Legal Defense Fund’s letter cited research by University of Chicago Law School professor Sonja B. Starr, which found that Black, Latino, and Asian applicants were more likely than white applicants to write about race in their admissions essays. The study also found that Black and Latino applicants more frequently discussed experiences of racial discrimination.“Harvard’s censorship policy thus disproportionately targets these Black and other students of color with the alteration of their application materials, whereas white, non-immigrant, and other applicants are free to disclose different aspects of their identities,” Nelson wrote, the Crimson reports.
Applicants not informed of restrictions
The organisation also criticised Harvard for not informing applicants about the new interview guidance. “An applicant may spend their entire interview recounting an experience that is incomprehensible absent the context of race without knowing that Harvard’s censorship policy will render their interview incomprehensible,” Nelson said in the letter.According to the Crimson, Assistant Director of Admissions Annie Medina told interviewers that applicants should not be briefed on the new limitations. “We don’t want students to be debriefed on this kind of update and your limitations in writing the report,” she said.
Calls for dialogue, no response yet
The Legal Defense Fund requested a meeting with Harvard administrators to discuss the policy and its effects. In an interview with the Crimson, senior counsel Michaele T. Young said the organisation had not received a response.Asked whether legal action was being considered, Young declined to comment. “We wanted to reach out to Harvard’s leadership to have a conversation about the issue,” she said. “We want to see Harvard conduct its admissions process in a way that affords all applicants equal opportunity to compete for admission.”
About the Author
