Today, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) sent a letter to Harvard University raising serious legal concerns about its newly-implemented alumni interview policy that requires alumni interviewers to erase all references to an applicant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin in their post-interview reports to the admissions office.
Harvard’s censorship policy unlawfully disadvantages Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, Latinx, and Indigenous American applicants as well as immigrants of color who are more likely to discuss personal experiences that are inextricably intertwined with their race, ethnicity, or nationality.
The policy also risks violating federal and state civil rights laws.
“Harvard’s new censorship policy denies many Black applicants, immigrants, and other applicants of color an equal opportunity to compete for admission,” said Michaele Turnage Young, Senior Counsel and Co-Manager of the Equal Protection Initiative at LDF. “It is vitally important that colleges and universities continue to consider applicants in the full breadth of their humanity and lived experience, including experiences that pertain to their racial and ethnic background. Nothing in the law requires Harvard to invoke these punitive measures that disproportionately harm certain groups of applicants and privilege others. In fact, Harvard is likely violating federal and state laws through this policy.”
The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) does not require institutions to silence interviewers, censor applicants, ignore context, or pretend that applicants’ racial or ethnic backgrounds play no role in their lives. In SFFA, the Supreme Court held that applicants may not be given a leg up solely because of their racial identity. However, the Court explicitly acknowledged that applicants may discuss, and colleges may consider, how an applicant’s race or ethnicity has shaped their lived experiences. For example, an applicant’s experiences with race may reveal personal qualities such as courage or determination that inform how an applicant can make a distinctive contribution to the university community.
LDF remains committed to defending equal opportunity and civil rights in education. LDF represented twenty-five Harvard student and alumni organizations comprised of more than 18,000 Asian American, Black, Latinx, Native, and white Harvard students and alumni as amici curiae in SFFA.
“Erasing identity within the college admissions process does not create fairness; it encourages exclusion,” said Victor Olofin, Marshall-Motley Program Fellow at LDF. “Harvard’s admissions process consistently asks students to share how their experiences have shaped them, yet punishes those whose experiences include race, ethnicity, or discrimination. This policy sends a message that certain aspects of who students are must be hidden, rather than understood. That approach is inconsistent with SFFA and with longstanding civil rights laws.”
The letter urges Harvard University to immediately reconsider and revise the policy to ensure compliance with federal and state civil rights laws and to provide clear guidance that aligns with SFFA without imposing discriminatory or misleading restrictions on alumni interviewers.
Read LDF’s full letter to Harvard University.
###
Founded in 1940, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) is the nation’s first civil rights law organization. LDF’s Equal Protection Initiative seeks to defend and advance the proper interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause and anti-discrimination law so that we can all continue to advance equal opportunity for all. LDF’s Thurgood Marshall Institute is a multi-disciplinary and collaborative hub within LDF that launches targeted campaigns and undertakes innovative research to shape the civil rights narrative. In media attributions, please refer to us as the Legal Defense Fund or LDF. Please note that LDF has been completely separate from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) since 1957 — although LDF was originally founded by the NAACP and shares its commitment to equal rights.
