Three civil rights groups filed a complaint with the US Department of Education, asserting that Harvard’s preference for “legacy” applicants violates federal laws prohibiting race discrimination in federally funded programs, which encompass almost all colleges and universities in the United States.

In a significant blow to initiatives promoting diverse student bodies, the Supreme Court recently ruled that race-conscious policies implemented by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina were unconstitutional. This decision is anticipated to spark fresh challenges to admission policies across the country.

Harvard College, the undergraduate division of Harvard University, has not yet issued a response to the complaint.

Also read: Affirmative action: Will barring race-based college admissions in US affect Indian students too?

The civil rights groups argue that the Supreme Court ruling further emphasises the necessity of eliminating policies that disadvantage non-white applicants. They claim that approximately 70 percent of white applicants with family ties to donors or alumni and are six times more likely to get admission compared to other applicants. They highlighted that legacy admissions occupy a considerable portion of available slots, thereby reducing opportunities for non-white applicants who are less likely to have familial connections to the institution.

Lawyers for Civil Rights, a Boston-based non-profit representing the groups, are calling for an investigation into Harvard’s admission practices by the Department of Education. They are also demanding that the school relinquish legacy preferences if it wishes to continue receiving federal funding.

“Your family’s last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process,” Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, the executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights, said in a statement.

Also read: A contest of two faulty arguments familiar to Indians

According to the complaint, 28 percent of Harvard’s class of 2019 consisted of legacies, resulting in fewer available slots for non-white applicants who are less likely to have family connections to the school.

During last October’s Supreme Court hearing of the Harvard and UNC cases, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs argued that eliminating legacy preferences would diminish Harvard’s predominantly white, wealthy, and privileged composition.

Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas seemed to support this notion, questioning why Harvard could not abolish the legacy policy instead of implementing separate preferences for non-white students.

Seth Waxman, Harvard’s lawyer, countered the argument, stating that there was no evidence indicating that ending legacy preferences would result in a more diverse student body.

(With inputs from Reuters)

Updated: 04 Jul 2023, 07:25 AM IST