AUDIO: Harvard Lawyer Struggles to Explain Why Asian Applicants Are Given Lower ‘Personal’ Scores

Seth Waxman, an attorney for Harvard College, struggled to explain to the Supreme Court on Monday why Asian American applicants were consistently given lower “personal” scores in admissions criteria than measures of other racial and ethnic groups.

Justice Samuel Alito pressed Waxman on the issue, which is at the core of a discrimination case brought by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard, alleging that its affirmative action policies discriminate against Asian American applicants. The Harvard case is being heard alongside a similar case, brought by the same plaintiff, against the University of North Carolina.

As Breitbart News reported in 2018, the trial at the district court level revealed a 2013 internal Harvard study that raised suspicions that the “personal” score used subjective and amorphous criteria that would allow the university to discriminate against Asians:

The study, as described by the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper, found that if admissions were based on academic performance and extracurricular activities alone, Asian-American applicants would comprise 43% of the freshman class. However, the actual percentage of Asian-American applicants was about half that.

The key appeared to be the inclusion of a “personality” component in evaluating applicants. Subsequent reporting by the Crimson revealed that traits included in “personality” were: “humor, sensitivity, grit, leadership, integrity, helpfulness, courage, kindness and many other qualities.”

Alito asked Waxman to explain why Asian applicants scored lower on the “personal” criterion. Waxman tried to evade the question, then described the difference on the personal score as small, and finally resorted to citing the district court’s decision in Harvard’s favor, which concluded that there was no discrimination. However, he admitted that the district court had not had full access to the precise criteria used in evaluating an applicant’s personal score.

Waxman then argued that the personal score was merely a form of “triage” to manage a large number of applications, and had no statistical effect on the outcome.

“Then why do you do it?” Alito asked.

The cases are Students for Fair Admission v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, No. 21-707 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.