In a statement, Harvard welcomed the ruling and said its admissions polices are consistent with Supreme Court precedent. Harvard, in short, has run its admissions by the book.” “In an extremely methodical and careful decision,” he said, the court had “cut through all the rhetoric of those attacking Harvard’s affirmative action plan to find that there is no there there. Black, a constitutional law professor at the University of South Carolina, said it was clear that the appeals court understood that the national ramifications of the case and the likelihood that it will end up before the Supreme Court. “There was ample non-statistical evidence suggesting that Harvard admissions officers did not engage in any racial stereotyping,” the court said in a 104-page decision.ĭerek W.
#Anemona hartocollis trial
It also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument during the trial that Harvard’s admissions office had been affected by “implicit bias,” or unconscious racial stereotyping. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Massachusetts.Īlthough various statistical models showed that Asian-American students had a marginally lower chance of acceptance to Harvard than similarly qualified white students, the margin was negligible, the appeals court said. Testimony also revealed that Harvard did value certain personal characteristics in applicants, such as “effervescence, charity, maturity and strength of character.”īut the district court ruled that Harvard’s admissions practices did not constitute intentional discrimination, a decision that was upheld Thursday by the U.S. An examination of its inner workings in court exposed how the school gives advantages to many groups of applicants, including recruited athletes, legacies (the children of Harvard graduates), and the children of wealthy donors, prominent people and university employees. The university admitted only 4.6 percent of applicants in 2018, the year the lower-court trial took place. Getting into Harvard is challenging for almost anyone.
Harvard countered with an expert witness who said the plaintiffs’ statistical model was flawed, and argued that its admissions process considered many intangibles, such as the personal stories and special talents of applicants, and could not be reduced to a few variables.
0 kommentar(er)
