THE HARVARD CRIMSON

NOV. 18, 2014

SUIT FILED. Project on Fair Representation announced a lawsuit against Harvard for “employing racially and ethnically discriminatory policies” in its admissions practices.

JUNE 16, 2018

OCT. 2, 2019

RULING MADE. Harvard College’s race-conscious admissions policies do not illegally discriminate against Asian American applicants, federal judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled.

FEB. 25, 2021

Students for Fair Admissions petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision upholding Harvard’s race-conscious admissions.

NOV. 1, 2022

ON ITS LAST LEG. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared open to banning the consideration of race in college admissions during oral arguments.

Staff For

The Harvard Crimson

Nov. 17,

2014

Students for Fair Admissions — a nonprofit anti-affirmative action group led by conservative legal activist Edward J. Blum — filed lawsuits against both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The suits alleged that the universities’ admissions practices were discriminatory and unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Instead, SFFA argued, race-neutral admissions policies could achieve similar levels of diversity.

Oct. 16, 2018

The trial began in the Massachusetts District Court. Lawyers for both Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions offered lengthy opening statements, with the University defending itself from claims of discrimination against Asian American applicants. William F. Lee ’72 — the senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation, the University’s highest governing body — served as the University’s lead trial lawyer. He pointed to Supreme Court precedent that indicates the College admissions process is legally sound.

Oct. 1, 2019

Federal judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that Harvard College’s raceconscious admissions practices did not illegally discriminate against Asian American applicants. Though SFFA alleged the admissions policies discriminated against Asian American applicants by requiring them to achieve a higher standard, Burroughs found the policies to be legal. In her decision, Burroughs noted that ensuring diversity at Harvard requires the use of race-conscious admissions.

Nov. 12, 2020

Two judges for the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Students for Fair Admissions had standing to sue Harvard but that the University’s race-conscious admissions practices did not violate civil rights law. Judges Jeffrey R. Howard and Sandra L. Lynch wrote that Harvard did not engage in racial balancing and had considered raceneutral alternatives. The University welcomed the ruling.

Feb. 25, 2021

Students for Fair Admissions petitioned the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision upholding Harvard’s raceconscious admission practices. Edward J. Blum, the president of SFFA, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in hopes that the Court will take up the lawsuit and rule against Harvard and its admissions practices. In order for the Court to take up the case, four justices must have agreed to SFFA’s petition.

May 17, 2021

Harvard University filed an opposition brief urging the Supreme Court to reject the petition from Students for Fair Admissions that sought to have the Court take up the case and review a lower court’s decision to uphold Harvard’s admissions practices. Harvard’s attorneys argued in the brief that SFFA did not provide evidence to support its legal claims and did not establish unsettled legal issues that required review.

Jan. 24, 2022

EXPLAINER