Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al

Filing 417

MOTION for Summary Judgment by President and Fellows of Harvard College.(Waxman, Seth)

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 417 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOSTON DIVISION
STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-14176-ADB

v.
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD
COLLEGE (HARVARD CORPORATION),

Oral Argument Requested

Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Harvard”) moves the Court for
summary judgment on the remaining counts (Counts I, II, III, and V) of Students for Fair
Admissions, Inc.’s (“SFFA’s”) complaint (Dkt. 1). The grounds for this motion are set forth in
Harvard’s Memorandum in Support of this motion, Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, and
Declaration of Felicia Ellsworth and attached exhibits.
First, Harvard is entitled to summary judgment on all remaining counts because there is
no genuine dispute of material fact that SFFA lacks standing to pursue this litigation. SFFA is
not a true membership organization that can sue on behalf of its members; it is a litigation
vehicle designed to further the ideological objectives of its founder, Edward Blum. In addition,
discovery has revealed that SFFA’s “standing members” lack the concrete stake in the outcome
of this dispute required by Article III.
Second, Harvard is entitled to summary judgment on Count I because there is no genuine
dispute of material fact that Harvard does not discriminate against applicants of any race,
including Asian Americans. No documentary or testimonial evidence supports SFFA’s claim of
discrimination, and SFFA’s statistical arguments depend on a model of the Harvard admissions

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 417 Filed 06/15/18 Page 2 of 4

process that excludes numerous factors relevant to the admissions process and numerous
applicants who participate in that process. The model offered by Harvard’s expert, which
accounts for all observable information concerning the admissions process, finds no evidence of
discrimination.
Third, Harvard is entitled to summary judgment on Count II because there is no genuine
dispute of material fact that Harvard does not engage in “racial balancing” or impose racial
quotas of any kind. No documentary or testimonial evidence supports SFFA’s allegation that
Harvard manipulates its admissions process to produce a class with a desired racial composition,
and unrebutted statistical analysis demonstrates that the racial composition of Harvard’s admitted
classes has varied significantly from year to year.
Fourth, Harvard is entitled to summary judgment on Count III because there is no
genuine dispute of material fact that Harvard’s admissions process reviews each applicant as a
whole person, using race flexibly and as only one factor among many. The unrebutted record
establishes that each applicant to Harvard is considered as an individual and that race does not
have a mechanical effect or overwhelm the effects of other factors.
Finally, Harvard is entitled to summary judgment on Count V because there is no
genuine dispute of material fact that there are no race-neutral measures that would permit
Harvard to attain an exceptional class that is racially diverse, at a tolerable administrative
expense, and without compromising Harvard’s pursuit of excellence in all forms. Harvard has
carefully studied and will continue to study its many existing race-neutral practices, as well as
numerous potential practices it might employ. At present, however, no workable race-neutral
alternatives would allow it to achieve its diversity-related educational objectives while also
maintaining its standards of excellence.

2

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 417 Filed 06/15/18 Page 3 of 4

WHEREFORE, Harvard respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor
on Counts I, II, III, and V of SFFA’s complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Seth P. Waxman
Seth P. Waxman (pro hac vice)
Paul R.Q. Wolfson (pro hac vice)
Daniel Winik (pro hac vice)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Debo P. Adegbile (pro hac vice)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
William F. Lee (BBO #291960)
Felicia H. Ellsworth (BBO #665232)
Andrew S. Dulberg (BBO #675405)
Elizabeth C. Mooney (BBO #679522)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendant President and
Fellows of Harvard College

Dated: June 15, 2018

3

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 417 Filed 06/15/18 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the CM/ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Seth P. Waxman
Seth P. Waxman

4