The United States District Court For the District Of Massachusetts, Boston Division
Students For Fair Admissions, Inc., Plaintiff, v. President And Fellows Of Harvard College (Harvard Corporation), Defendant.
Brief Of Amici Curiae Southeastern Legal Foundation, The Center For Equal Opportunity, and Reason Foundation In Opposition To Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment and In Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment
Summary of the Argument
There is overwhelming evidence that Harvard uses racial preferences against Asian-Americans as part of its admissions program. In addition to Dr. Arcidiacono’s conclusions, a number of independently published studies show how Harvard penalizes Asian-Americans — this includes the findings of Dr. Althea Nagai, a research fellow at the Center for Equal Opportunity, whose published studies inform exactly how Harvard penalizes Asian-Americans. That evidence compels application of strict scrutiny to evaluate the constitutionality of Harvard’s admissions program.
To satisfy strict scrutiny, Harvard must show that it is pursuing a constitutional goal in a narrowly tailored way. Consequently, an invocation of diversity must be justified in a particular way, not a general one. In particular, Harvard has to show that there are compelling educational benefits that follow from using racial preferences to limit the number of Asian-Americans admitted in the name of greater student body diversity. Further, these benefits must be capable of judicial evaluation and outweigh the obvious costs of discriminating against Asian-American applicants. Likewise, Harvard’s claim of narrow tailoring, which is not entitled to judicial deference, cannot favor one minority over another. This Court should deny Harvard’s motion because Harvard cannot satisfy strict scrutiny since, among other factors, its admissions program favors African-American and Hispanic applicants while penalizing Asian-Americans.