STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
BACKGROUND
During the past few years, there has been growing concern within the Asian American community
over the possibility of discrimination in the selection of applicants for admission by some of the moxt
prestigious colleges and universities in the country. As articulated in numerous media reports and
\demie eredentials
journal articles, the basic thrust of the concern has been that, despite superior ac
in terms of high school performance and standardized test scores. Asian Americans have been
admitted 10 selective schools at a rate lower than white applicants and other minority group
applicants, Charges that schools are setting quotas to limit the number of Asian American students
admitted in the face of their growing numbers of applicants, have been leveled by community leaders
and reported in the medis. Although administrators at most private, selective universities deny
ory practices of the use of quotas, at least two, Brown and Stantord, formed committees
diserimin:
to review their own policies aud practices. Brown concluded that there was evidence of
discrimination in their admissions process which adversely affected Asian American applicants, At
Stanford. a committee found that they could not completely explain why Asian Americans were
admiuied at a lower rate than white applicants, although they found no evidence of conscious bias or
implicit quotas,
While the possibility of discriminatory admissiony practices continues to be debated, there is general
consensus that, since the mid-1970s, the number of Asian Americans applying to colleges and
sognized that Asian Americans collectively represent
a highly qualified group of appl sts such as Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) Math
Asian American students score higher than white students,
universities has nearly doubled. Further. itis re
nts: in some ar
At Harvard, interest in the admission of Asian American students dates back to the mid-1970s, when
Asian American and other minority groups sought to increase the recruitment and admission of
minority applicants. A major objective of the Harvard Asian American student group then was 10
be recognized by Harvard as a minority group, and included in the alfirmative action programs of the
Admissions Office. By 1983, student concerns included their belief that stereotypes of Asian
Americans held by Admissions Officers contributed to the low percentage of applicants admitted, a
roups. including whites. A further concern was the small number
ged backgrounds who were admitted
rate below that for all other ethni
of Asian Americans from disadvanta
In the Spring 1987 issue of The Public Interest. Bunzel and Au suggested, based primarily on their
review of published SAT scores. that the lower Asian American admission rate at institutions
including Harvard could not be explained by a less qualified Asian American applicant pool. Further,
they asserted that there was insufviciemt evidence that Asian American applicants scored lower on
other criteria, such as extracurricular activities and other non-academic areas, which might account2- Statement of Findings, Compliance Review 01-88-6009
for the lower admission rate. Similarly, they were not persuaded that special consideration given to
certain groups of applicants, such as geographical preferences, children of alumni or faculty. or
minorities sought through affirmative action programs, fully explained the disparity between white and
Asian American admit rates
In January 1988. Harvard. through the Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid, issued a "Statement
‘on Asian American Admissions at Harvard-Radelitfe” which, in part, responded to concerns raised
about “under-representation” of Asian Americans at Harvard and rumors of quotas, In light of the
vigorous efforts to recruit Asian Americans, and the new record set each year of the last decade in
the number of Asian American students admitted, Harvard felt that claims that the school might be
limiting Asian American opportunities were unfounded. The difterence in admission rates for Asian
Americans and whites, about 3.7% (13.3% vs. 17.062) over # 10 year period, including the Classes of
1982 through 1991. was explained as follows:
While Asian Americans are slightly stronger than whites on academic criteria
they are slightly less strong on extracurricular criteria. In addition, there are
nt pool who are alumni ae children
or prospective varsity athletes. When all these factors are taken into account
very few Asian Americans in our applica
the difference in admission rates for the two groups disappears. Those with
comparable extracurricular and athletic credentials are admitted at the same
rates, This is also true for Asian American alumni‘ae children.
The issue of possible discrimination against Asian American applicants to selective colleges and
universities came to the attention of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) from u number of sources
including various individual and Asian American organizations. the multitude of media reports. and
antick
admissions program at Harvard were raised directly to the Department of Education (Department)
contained in scholarly journals. In addition, specitie concerns about the unde
and to OCR. Consequently, OCR decided to initiate @ compliance review w determine whether
Harvard was complying with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination
on the bases of race and national origin by institutions receiving Departmental funds.
In this review OCR first sought to determine whether Asian Americans were admitted 10 Harvard
at a significantly lower rate than whites. If true, we would then seek to explain why the disparity
sxisted. and whether any explanations. or the admissions process itself. indicated discrimination a
Asian Am
quota issue, and also the general treatment of Asian Americans in the admissions process.
ans, in violation of Tile VI. Included in our review was an examination of the all3 Statement of Findings, Compliance Review (11-88-6009
LEGAL AND INVESTIGATIVE APPROACH
‘The regulation implementing Title VI at 34 C.F.R. Sections 100.3 (#) and (b)(2) proscribes:
(a) General. No person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color,
or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of.
or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program to which this
part applies.
(b)(2). Specific discriminatory actions prohibited
A recipient, in determining the . . . class of individuals ta whom. of the
situations in which. . .. services. financial aid. other benefits, or facilities will
be provided . . . or the class of individuals to be afforded an opportunity to
gh contractual or
participate in any such program, may not, directly oF thro
other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration which have
the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their ra
color or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially
impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect
individuals of a particular race. color, or national origin,
To assess compliance with 34 C.F.R. 1003 (a). OCR sought to determine whether Harvard treated
Asian American students different'y from non-minority (white) students in its admissions process for
Harvard-Radeliffe’s undergraduate program. First, we established that Asian American applicants
were admitted at a significantly lower rate than white applicants, Next. we tried to ascertain whether
this lower admit rate was the result of intentional discrimination. Towards this end, we reviewed
Harvard's undergraduate admissions policies and procedures, us described through written documents
and interviews, to understand the methods and criteria used to select applicants for an entering
including any major policy or procedural changes over a ten year period of review aflectin
Classes of 1983 through 1992. Specitically, we looked for any differences in the established
procedures for the evaluation of Asian American applicants in comparison to white applicants
In addition, OCR considered whether the admissions process was applied in the same manner to
Asian American students and white students. Through interviews
essed the implementation of the admissions process, including staff (reader) ratings, preference
tions. Different treatment could be established. for example. if”
Admissions staff gave lower ratings to Asian American than white applicants with similar records or
and review of applicant files. we
as
categories, and committee delibe