Updated July 3, 2023, at 5:26 pm
Three Black and Latinx groups filed a civil rights complaint against Harvard Monday morning alleging that the University’s consideration of donor legacy and preferences in the admissions process violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. .
The 31-page complaint, filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights before the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, says Harvard’s consideration of legacy preferences “violates federal law.”
“In other words, Harvard admitted predominantly white students using Donor and Legacy Preferences, and, as a direct result, excluded non-white applicants,” the complaint states.
As a recipient of federal funds, Harvard is required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination “on the basis of race, color, and national origin” in programs that receive federal financial aid.
The filing comes just days after the Supreme Court ruled that admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by improperly considering race in the admissions process. admission.
In a joint statement Thursday responding to the Court’s decision, Harvard’s top brass wrote that the University “will continue to be a vibrant community whose members come from all walks of life, around the world.”
“We write today to reaffirm the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend on a community made up of people with diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and life experiences,” they wrote.
Attorneys for Civil Rights filed the complaint on behalf of the Chica Project, the African Community Economic Development of New England, and The Greater Boston Latino Network.
The complaint outlines six requests, asking the Department of Education to investigate Harvard’s admissions policies, asserting that legacy preferences violate Title VI, and asserting that Harvard should stop considering the donor’s legacy and preferences if it wishes to continue receiving federal funding.
In the complaint, the groups called on the department to ensure that applicants cannot demonstrate a relationship with a family member or donor at any point in the admission process, and “provide all other relief that the Department deems fit and reasonable.”
The complaint alleges that Harvard gave “special preference in its admissions process to hundreds of predominantly white students” because of “who their relatives are.”
“Students who receive these special preferences (“Donor and Legacy Preferences”) are significantly more likely to be accepted than other applicants, and comprise up to 15% of Harvard’s admitted students,” the complaint states.
Harvard spokeswoman Nicole G. Rura did not respond to a request for comment on the civil rights complaint.
Legacy admissions have long been scrutinized by federal and state officials — a bill banning legacy admissions was proposed in Congress last year, and another in Massachusetts earlier this year.
In oral arguments in October, the justices asked whether eliminating legacy preferences could be a race-neutral alternative to diversify Harvard’s student body. Shortly after their decision last week, many — including Supreme Court justices and President Joe Biden — singled out legacy preferences as unfair.
Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 previously defended the “small tip” legacy status grants in the admissions process.
Elite schools have increasingly stopped considering legacy preferences in recent years. Johns Hopkins University, Amherst College, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology all do not consider heritage in their admissions process.
At Amherst, the percentage of legacies in the enrolled incoming class fell from an annual average of 11 percent to 6 percent last year, the first without legacy preferences.
In June 2017, the Committee to Study Race-Neutral Alternatives — chaired by Fitzsimmons, Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana, and then-Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Michael D. Smith — was formed to consider alternatives to race- conscious of the College’s admissions process, including the elimination of ALDC preferences: preferences of athletes, legacies, “Dean’s List” applicants, and children of faculty and staff.
The Committee’s report, released in 2018, found that race-neutral alternatives, including abandoning preferences for ALDCs — would not achieve diversity without “significant and unacceptable” sacrifice. to “other institutional requirements.”
In their complaint, the lawyers attacked Harvard’s assertion that legacy preferences are necessary to maintain good relations with donors and alumni.
“To suggest that people should not apply to, involve themselves in, or donate to Harvard simply because it does so defeats the logic of Donor and Legacy Preferences,” they wrote.
The filing specifically addresses the impact of the Court’s recent decision on efforts to recruit a diverse student body.
“In order to improve, or at least preserve, diversity and equity in the admissions process going forward, Harvard should be prohibited from using a system that gives significant preferences to white applicants, ie, Donor and Legacy Preferences, to the detriment of applicants of color,” the statement read.
“While Harvard’s stated justifications for using Donor and Legacy Preferences do not constitute important educational goals, diversity, on the other hand, remains a compelling educational goal, and Harvard has always arguing thus,” it read.
—Staff writer Michelle N. Amponsah can be reached at michelle.amponsah@thecrimson.com. Follow him on Twitter @mnamponsah.
—Staff writer Rahem D. Hamid can be reached at rahem.hamid@thecrimson.com.
