海角大神

Harvard does not discriminate against Asian American applicants, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a decision that offers relief to other colleges that consider race in admissions, but also sets the stage for a potential review by an increasingly conservative United States Supreme Court.

The decision came from two judges on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston who rejected claims from an anti-affirmative action group that accused聽the Ivy League University of imposing a 鈥渞acial penalty鈥� on Asian Americans. The judges upheld a previous ruling clearing Harvard of discrimination when聽choosing students.

It delivers a blow to the suit鈥檚 plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit that aims to eliminate the use of race in college admissions. In聽a statement, the group鈥檚 president, Edward Blum, said he was disappointed but that 鈥渙ur hope is not lost.鈥�

鈥淭his lawsuit is now on track to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court where we will ask the justices to end these unfair and unconstitutional race-based admissions聽policies at Harvard and all colleges and universities,鈥� Mr. Blum said.

Both sides have been preparing for a possible review by the Supreme Court, and some legal scholars say the issue is ripe to be revisited.

Filed in 2014, the lawsuit has revived a national debate about race鈥檚 role in college admissions. In multiple decisions spanning decades, the U.S. Supreme聽Court has ruled that colleges can consider race as a limited factor in order to promote campus diversity. But the practice faces mounting challenges in聽the courts, including three suits from Students from Fair Admissions.

Many elite colleges consider applicants鈥� race and give an edge to some underrepresented students to promote diversity on campus. The Trump administration聽has opposed the practice and backed the lawsuit against Harvard. In October, the Justice Department filed a similar suit accusing Yale University of discriminating聽against Asian American and white applicants.

In Thursday鈥檚 decision, however, the judges ruled that Harvard鈥檚 admissions process passes legal muster and aligns with requirements that the Supreme Court laid out in previous cases.

鈥淭he issue before us is whether Harvard鈥檚 limited use of race in its admissions process in order to achieve diversity in the period in question is consistent聽with the requirements of Supreme Court precedent. There was no error,鈥� the judges wrote.

Mr. Blum, a legal strategist, has spent years working to rid racial considerations from college admissions. Before the Harvard case, he orchestrated an unsuccessful聽fight challenging the use of race at the University of Texas. In that case, a white student said she was rejected by the university because she was white.

Several Asian American groups filed legal briefs supporting Harvard, while some others filed briefs backing the suit and alleging discrimination in Ivy聽League admissions.

The suit alleges that Harvard鈥檚 admissions officers use a subjective 鈥減ersonal rating鈥� to discriminate against Asian Americans who apply to the school.

Using six years of admissions data, the group found that Asian American applicants were given the highest scores in an academic category but received the聽lowest scores on the personal rating.

The group鈥檚 analysis found that Harvard accepted Asian Americans at lower rates than any other racial group, while giving preference to Black and Hispanic聽students with lower grades. The lawsuit also alleged that Harvard works to keep a consistent racial breakdown among new students, which the organization聽says amounts to illegal 鈥渞acial balancing.鈥�

Harvard denies any discrimination and says it considers applicants鈥� race only in the narrow way approved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In close calls between聽students, some underrepresented students may get a 鈥渢ip鈥� in their favor, school officials have said, but students鈥� race is never counted against them.

After a three-week trial that cast new light on Harvard鈥檚 secretive selection process, a federal judge ruled that other factors could explain why Asian聽Americans are admitted at lower rates than other students. In her 2019 ruling, District Judge Allison D. Burroughs said Harvard鈥檚 admissions process is聽鈥渘ot perfect鈥� but concluded that there was 鈥渘o evidence of any racial animus whatsoever.鈥�

A three-judge panel of the appeals court heard arguments聽in September, but one of the judges, Juan Torruella, died in October聽before the case was decided. The ruling notes that Judge Torruella heard oral arguments but did not participate in issuing the decision.

The judges agreed with a district court finding that Harvard鈥檚 personal rating is not influenced by race. Although the rating may be correlated with race,聽the judges wrote, the link is more likely to be caused by outside factors including students鈥� personal essays or letters of recommendation.

Ultimately, the judges wrote, Asian American identity has a statistically insignificant effect on admissions probability, and they concluded that Harvard聽does not place outsize emphasis on race.

鈥淗arvard has demonstrated that it values all types of diversity, not just racial diversity,鈥� the judges wrote. 鈥淗arvard鈥檚 use of race in admissions is聽contextual and it does not consider race exclusively.鈥�

The decision received praise from the American Council on Education, an association of university presidents, which called it a 鈥渃lear win鈥� for Harvard聽and other universities.

Some legal scholars, however, believe that the current makeup of the Supreme Court may be more likely to place tighter limits around the use of race in聽admissions or to forbid the practice entirely.

The three Supreme Court justices appointed to the court by President Donald Trump have pushed the nation鈥檚 highest court more conservative than when it聽last ruled in favor of the consideration of race in college admissions in 2016.

Along with the Harvard case, the Virginia-based Students for Fair Admissions is also suing to rid racial considerations at the University of North Carolina聽at Chapel Hill and a separate case at the University of Texas at Austin.

This story was reported by The Associated Press. Mark Sherman in Washington, D.C. contributed to this report.