Appeals court upholds Harvard's use of racial discrimination in admissions

As the big tech tyrants tighten their grip, join us for more free speech at Parler—the anti-censorship social media platform.

The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has upheld Harvard's affirmative action policy after a suit was brought forward by a group representing Asian-Americans, CNN reports.

Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), said the ruling would be appealed. While expressing disappointment in the court's decision, Blum said that "our hope is not lost," and that his organization would fight all the way yo the Supreme Court to "end these unfair and unconstitutional race-based admissions policies at Harvard and all colleges and universities."

Blum also lost a case challenging affirmative action at the University of Texas in 2016.

"Harvard has shown that its holistic consideration of race is not impermissibly extensive," the court stated. According to the court, the "limited use of race" is acceptable in making admissions decisions and is consistent with precedent upheld by the courts.

The ruling also comes as a blow to the Trump administration, which has sided with SFFA in the case and gave them the support of the Justice Department.

According to a federal government brief on the matter, "Harvard meticulously tracks and shapes the racial makeup of its emerging incoming class throughout the process, continuously comparing the new class’s racial composition with that of the previous year. This overt engineering of racial stasis bears no resemblance to the flexible, non-mechanical 'plus' factor that the Supreme Court's cases to date have permitted."

"The evidence also showed that Harvard's process has repeatedly penalized one particular racial group: Asian Americans. Indeed, Harvard concedes that eliminating consideration of race would increase Asian-American admissions while decreasing those of Harvard’s favored racial groups," the government further argued.

Meanwhile, SFFA pointed towards Harvard's use of a "personal" rating alongside academic and extracurricular ratings. SFFA argued that the personal score amounted to stereotyping of Asian-Americans, which generally amounts to them being portrayed as nerdy and "book smart." The court ruled, however, that Harvard's policy did not amount to racial stereotyping.

The ruling brings the case a step closer to the Supreme Court, which has previously ruled 5-4 in favour of racially-based affirmative action. With the Supreme Court's conservative shift since President Donald Trump appointed three new justices, the future of affirmative action in the United States has come into question.