Law360, Boston (October 25, 2018, 7:56 PM EDT) -- Asian-Americans face a statistically significant penalty and discriminatory treatment as a result of their race when applying to Harvard University, a star expert witness said Thursday in testimony for the group suing over the prestigious university's affirmative action admissions policies.
Duke University professor Peter Arcidiacono, the expert of choice for Students for Fair Admissions, told the judge presiding over the landmark bench trial that his analysis of six years worth of Harvard admissions data revealed a statistical bias against Asian-American applicants. The university has criticized his analysis as “flawed,” but Arcidiacono testified that, while Asian-Americans consistently score higher academically, they are admitted to Harvard at lower rates to the benefit of other races.
“There is evidence of discrimination against Asian-Americans in the admissions process, both in how they rate applicants and in the decisions themselves,” he said. “Roughly two-thirds of African-American who get in are admitted as a result of racial preference and half of Hispanics admitted are due to racial preferences.”
In reaching his conclusions, Arcidiacono said he reviewed more than 170,000 applications from domestic students seeking admission to Harvard between 2010 and 2015. He omitted recruited athletes, legacy students, Dean’s List preferences and the children of Harvard faculty, know as ALDC candidates, leaving around 143,000 Harvard hopefuls. Among that group, he said the academic strength of Asian-Americans compared to other races was “striking.”
Students for Fair Admissions has claimed Harvard unfairly caps the number of Asian-Americans admitted, using its subjective “personal rating” to ding applicants with strong academic and extracurricular qualifications.
“I think it’s clear that race influences the personal rating,” Arcidiacono testified, adding the personal and overall ratings given to African-American applicants by Harvard admissions officers does not jibe with their academic level. African-Americans receive higher ratings despite having weaker academic qualifications, he said.
“I think the evidence is quite compelling that there is a penalty against Asian-American applicants,” Arcidiacono testified.
Without the so-called penalty, anywhere from 35 to 55 more Asian-Americans would have been admitted to Harvard each year from 2010 through 2014. The number of Asians allegedly unfairly rejected, according to Arcidiacono’s analysis, dips to 27 in 2015, which he noted is the only class admitted after Students for Fair Admissions filed its 2014 lawsuit.
With a racial boost, or “tip,” the percentage of African-Americans admitted to Harvard increases by 324 percent and the admission probability for Hispanics jumps by 141 percent, Arcidiacono said. An Asian-American’s probability of getting in drops by 16 percent, due to the alleged “penalty.”
Harvard has argued Arcidiacono’s research falls flat for several reasons, including the fact that he left out the ALDC candidates. U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, who is overseeing the trial, picked up on that point as she noted Asian-American applicants outperform the average admittance rates among that group of students.
“If you’re discriminating against a group,” she asked, “wouldn't you expect them to be discriminated against across the board?”
“I don’t think so,” Arcidiacono replied. “If a university wants to satisfy having a racial mix, they are going to do it in a way that best fits their objectives. You’re not going to want to upset your Asian-American legacies.”
Arcidiacono spent much of the afternoon defending his heavily critiqued analysis, which was compared to that of Harvard’s yet-to-testify expert, University of California, Berkeley professor David Card. The credibility of the competing data analyses is an issue on which the case could turn.
During cross-examination, WilmerHale’s William F. Lee frequently referenced Arcidiacono’s exclusion of ALDC candidates and suggested the economist had cooked the data set to get the results he was looking for when preparing his analysis.
“Data mining refers to slicing and dicing the data to get the result you want to find,” Lee said before repeating a line from his opening statement, “if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”
Lee listed off numerous “tips” Harvard gives out that have nothing to do with race, such as exceptional personal or leadership qualities, creativity, or geographic and economic factors.
“If someone gets a tip for geography because they are from Wyoming,” Lee asked, “does that mean Harvard has discriminated against someone from Massachusetts or Alabama?”
“It does mean there is a relative penalty for those applicants,” Arcidiacono replied.
Removing ALDC applicants results in a more negative effect on the Asian-American admittance rate. Arcidiacono argues their experiences are not typical when compared to other applicants because they get in at a much higher rate, but Lee suggested through his line of questioning that the only difference is they get a “tip,” just like numerous other types of applicants Arcidiacono chose to include in the baseline dataset.
“For any category in which you found a positive effect of being Asian-American, you excluded it from your model, correct?” Lee asked.
“I don’t know,” Arcidiacono replied
Lee also harped on the fact that around 600 fewer African-Americans and 500 fewer Hispanics would be admitted to Harvard over a four year period, according to his data models.
“If we use your terms, ‘winners and losers,’” Lee said, referencing Arcidiacono’s testimony, “the ‘winners’ are always whites and Asian-Americans and the ‘losers’ are always African-Americans and Hispanics.”
Lee did not finish his cross-examination of Arcidiacono, and the professor will be back on the stand to start the day on Friday.
Students for Fair Admissions is led by anti-affirmative action legal strategist Edward Blum, who has sat in the first row directly behind his attorneys during all nine days of the bench trial. The university admits it uses race as one of many admissions factors, but only as a “plus-factor” in the narrowly tailored way sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court. A diverse campus, the school argues, benefits all students.
Before Thursday’s testimony began, the two sides sparred over whether the raw statistical data behind Arcidiacono’s study and the competing one done by Card would be admitted into evidence: a total of around 200,000 applications. Harvard’s lawyers objected, saying the information could be highly personal and the firms would be able to preserve it if it is needed for future appeals.
Judge Burroughs said she would take a few days to review the law relevant to the question before making a ruling.
“We have no idea what the future holds as to where this case will progress,” said Students for Fair Admissions lawyer J. Scott McBride of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP.
“Really?” Judge Burroughs said with a skeptical smile and a tilt of the head, an apparent reference to the overwhelming expectation that the wide-ranging case will wind up before the Supreme Court.
Students for Fair Admissions is represented by Adam K. Mortara, J. Scott McBride, John M. Hughes, Katherine L.I. Hacker and Krista J. Perry of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, William S. Consovoy, Thomas R. McCarthy, Michael H. Park, John Michael Connolly and Patrick Strawbridge of Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC, and Paul M. Sanford of Burns & Levinson LLP.
Harvard is represented by Seth P. Waxman, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Daniel Winik, Debo P. Adegbile, William F. Lee, Felicia H. Ellsworth, Andrew S. Dulberg, Elizabeth C. Mooney and Danielle Conley of WilmerHale.
The case is Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, case number 1:14-cv-14176, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
--Editing by Joe Phalon.
最新文章
文章分类
归档
2016 (1)
2019 (51)
2021 (3)
