Read on Twitter
In SFFA v. Harvard, the 1st Circuit holds that plaintiffs have standing and that Harvard's affirmative action program does not violate Title VI. Opinion here: http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/19-2005P-01A.pdf
Enormous 104 page opinion. Case was originally heard by Judges Howard, Lynch, and Torruella. Since Judge Torruella passed away the opinion is issued only by Judges Howard and Lynch but (based on my time clerking on the 1st Cir) I think Judge Torruella also would have agreed.
(this opinion's font is giving me flashbacks)
Pg. 7 reminds us that SFFA, which is supposedly advocating for Asian Ams denied admission, was originally comprised of three white people: Abby Fisher (plaintiff in Fisher v. U Texas), her dad, & Edward Blum (rich guy who hates all things race conscious) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/us/affirmative-action-lawsuits.html
Pg. 22: many factors can "tip" an applicant into the class, incl "outstanding & unusual intellectual ability,
unusually appealing personal qualities, outstanding capacity for leadership, creative ability, athletic ability, legacy status, geographic, ethnic, or economic factors"
unusually appealing personal qualities, outstanding capacity for leadership, creative ability, athletic ability, legacy status, geographic, ethnic, or economic factors"
It's fascinating that many opponents of race-conscious admissions don't care about the role legacy status plays, which is substantial. At Harvard, the acceptance rate for legacy students is about 33%, compared with an overall acceptance rate of under 6%. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-schools-ivy-league-legacy-admissions-harvard-wealthier-whiter
Pg. 52 - reminder that this is an appeal from a 15-day bench trial at which the district court judge heard testimony from expert witnesses, and the appellate court is reviewing its factual findings for clear error.
Pg. 58: "Harvard's limited use of race in its admission program survives strict scrutiny"
Pg. 62-writing to SCOTUS here: "Harvard has identified specific, measurable goals it seeks to achieve by considering race in admissions. These goals are more precise & open to judicial scrutiny than the ones articulated by the U of Texas and approved by the Fisher II majority."
Pg. 67: "The level of variation in the share of admitted Asian American applicants is inconsistent with a quota, as is the fact that the share of admitted Asian Americans co-varies almost perfectly with the share of Asian American applicants." -->
The previous part is important bc SFFA had argued that there was a "quota" for Asian Am applicants -- that is, a ceiling on the number of Asian Am applicants Harvard would accept.
Also pg. 67: "The amount by which the share of admitted Asian American applicants fluctuates is greater than the amount by which the share of Asian American applicants fluctuates."
Pg. 76: Harvard periodically considers race-neutral alternatives, but "no Supreme Court precedent requires Harvard to identify a specific end point for its use of race." Compare this to Justice O'Connor's random 25-year deadline in Grutter.
1st Cir rejects SFFA's claim that Harvard's admissions committee intentionally discriminates against Asian Am applicants
Pgs. 91-100: long discussion of SFFA's claim that Harvard stereotypes Asian Am students and assigns them lower ratings based on their personal characteristics, and ultimately agrees w/ district court that the claim is not supported by statistical evidence.
This reads to me like an opinion written in anticipation of a cert grant.
Agreed, both on the celebrating and on the notion that there's something ahead: https://twitter.com/meeradeo/status/1326902565854982147?s=20
Takeaways: (1) Harvard's race-conscious admissions program lives for now; (2) we're probably not done with this case.
