Do Asian American applicants face discrimination in admissions?

In February, the nonprofit group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether Harvard University’s use of race in its undergraduate admissions process discriminates against Asian American applicants in favor of White applicants.

Decades of Supreme Court precedent hold that race-conscious admissions processes are subject to strict scrutiny (e.g., Fisher v. Univ. of Texas, 2016; Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003; Regents of the Univ. of California v. Bakke, 1978).

To withstand this scrutiny, an institution must demonstrate that its use of race in admissions decisions furthers a "compelling interest" and is "narrowly tailored" to do so. Institutions can show that student body diversity serves a compelling interest by "promoting cross-racial understanding, breaking down racial stereotypes, fostering a robust exchange of ideas, cultivating a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, exposing students to different cultures, and preparing students for the challenges of an increasingly diverse workforce." To be narrowly tailored, an admissions program cannot employ racial balancing or quotas, and it cannot use race in a mechanical way, such as by applying a specific number of admissions points to all applicants of particular races. In addition, race cannot be used when an institution’s diversity goals can be achieved via a workable race-neutral alternative (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 2020).

SFFA filed a lawsuit in 2014 alleging that Harvard’s admissions process fails to meet the Supreme Court’s criteria and that Harvard was intentionally discriminating against Asian American applicants. Both SFFA and Harvard presented extensive statistical evidence using applicant data from the entering classes of 2014 through 2019. Data included a "personal rating" for each applicant issued by Harvard’s admissions staff—an assessment of the candidate’s overall leadership, maturity, integrity, and other characteristics gleaned from application materials.

The court considered whether Harvard’s personal ratings should be included in models assessing the effect of race on the probability of admission. When the personal rating was included, logistic regression showed that Asian American identity had no statistically significant effect on odds of admission. Conversely, when it was excluded, Asian American identity had a negative effect on odds of admission. The court determined that the model including the rating was more complete, and it was appropriate to include the rating despite its correlation with race. On appeal, the First Circuit agreed that Harvard’s use of race to achieve diversity withstood strict scrutiny. SFFA now seeks to have the Supreme Court overrule its prior cases and hold that institutions of higher education can no longer use race as a factor in admissions decisions. Given that two of the justices who joined the majority in the court’s last major affirmative action case have been replaced, it is possible that the law may change.

Psychologists continue to study the question of race in college admissions. Recent simulation research suggests that race-neutral alternatives to direct consideration of race in admissions decisions will result in reduced college access for people of color. Research also continues to support the conclusion that the careful use of race in admissions decisions leads to positive outcomes for students of color. Although ample research and legal precedent indicate that the benefits of diversity in higher education are real, so too is the possibility that the court will restrict the consideration of race in admissions decisions.