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

Filing 421

DECLARATION re 412 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52, # 53 Exhibit 53, # 54 Exhibit 54, # 55 Exhibit 55, # 56 Exhibit 56, # 57 Exhibit 57, # 58 Exhibit 58, # 59 Exhibit 59, # 60 Exhibit 60, # 61 Exhibit 61, # 62 Exhibit 62, # 63 Exhibit 63, # 64 Exhibit 64, # 65 Exhibit 65, # 66 Exhibit 66, # 67 Exhibit 67, # 68 Exhibit 68, # 69 Exhibit 69, # 70 Exhibit 70, # 71 Exhibit 71, # 72 Exhibit 72, # 73 Exhibit 73, # 74 Exhibit 74, # 75 Exhibit 75, # 76 Exhibit 76, # 77 Exhibit 77, # 78 Exhibit 78, # 79 Exhibit 79, # 80 Exhibit 80, # 81 Exhibit 81, # 82 Exhibit 82, # 83 Exhibit 83, # 84 Exhibit 84, # 85 Exhibit 85, # 86 Exhibit 86, # 87 Exhibit 87, # 88 Exhibit 88, # 89 Exhibit 89, # 90 Exhibit 90, # 91 Exhibit 91, # 92 Exhibit 92, # 93 Exhibit 93, # 94 Exhibit 94, # 95 Exhibit 95, # 96 Exhibit 96, # 97 Exhibit 97, # 98 Exhibit 98, # 99 Exhibit 99, # 100 Exhibit 100, # 101 Exhibit 101, # 102 Exhibit 102, # 103 Exhibit 103, # 104 Exhibit 104, # 105 Exhibit 105, # 106 Exhibit 106, # 107 Exhibit 107, # 108 Exhibit 108, # 109 Exhibit 109, # 110 Exhibit 110, # 111 Exhibit 111, # 112 Exhibit 112, # 113 Exhibit 113, # 114 Exhibit 114, # 115 Exhibit 115, # 116 Exhibit 116, # 117 Exhibit 117, # 118 Exhibit 118, # 119 Exhibit 119, # 120 Exhibit 120, # 121 Exhibit 121, # 122 Exhibit 122, # 123 Exhibit 123, # 124 Exhibit 124, # 125 Exhibit 125, # 126 Exhibit 126, # 127 Exhibit 127, # 128 Exhibit 128, # 129 Exhibit 129, # 130 Exhibit 130, # 131 Exhibit 131, # 132 Exhibit 132, # 133 Exhibit 133, # 134 Exhibit 134, # 135 Exhibit 135, # 136 Exhibit 136, # 137 Exhibit 137, # 138 Exhibit 138, # 139 Exhibit 139, # 140 Exhibit 140, # 141 Exhibit 141, # 142 Exhibit 142, # 143 Exhibit 143, # 144 Exhibit 144, # 145 Exhibit 145, # 146 Exhibit 146, # 147 Exhibit 147, # 148 Exhibit 148, # 149 Exhibit 149, # 150 Exhibit 150, # 151 Exhibit 151, # 152 Exhibit 152, # 153 Exhibit 153, # 154 Exhibit 154, # 155 Exhibit 155, # 156 Exhibit 156, # 157 Exhibit 157, # 158 Exhibit 158, # 159 Exhibit 159, # 160 Exhibit 160, # 161 Exhibit 161, # 162 Exhibit 162, # 163 Exhibit 163, # 164 Exhibit 164, # 165 Exhibit 165, # 166 Exhibit 166, # 167 Exhibit 167, # 168 Exhibit 168, # 169 Exhibit 169, # 170 Exhibit 170, # 171 Exhibit 171, # 172 Exhibit 172, # 173 Exhibit 173, # 174 Exhibit 174, # 175 Exhibit 175, # 176 Exhibit 176, # 177 Exhibit 177, # 178 Exhibit 178, # 179 Exhibit 179, # 180 Exhibit 180, # 181 Exhibit 181, # 182 Exhibit 182, # 183 Exhibit 183, # 184 Exhibit 184, # 185 Exhibit 185, # 186 Exhibit 186, # 187 Exhibit 187, # 188 Exhibit 188, # 189 Exhibit 189, # 190 Exhibit 190, # 191 Exhibit 191, # 192 Exhibit 192, # 193 Exhibit 193, # 194 Exhibit 194, # 195 Exhibit 195, # 196 Exhibit 196, # 197 Exhibit 197, # 198 Exhibit 198, # 199 Exhibit 199, # 200 Exhibit 200, # 201 Exhibit 201, # 202 Exhibit 202, # 203 Exhibit 203, # 204 Exhibit 204, # 205 Exhibit 205, # 206 Exhibit 206, # 207 Exhibit 207, # 208 Exhibit 208, # 209 Exhibit 209, # 210 Exhibit 210, # 211 Exhibit 211, # 212 Exhibit 212, # 213 Exhibit 213, # 214 Exhibit 214, # 215 Exhibit 215, # 216 Exhibit 216, # 217 Exhibit 217, # 218 Exhibit 218, # 219 Exhibit 219, # 220 Exhibit 220, # 221 Exhibit 221, # 222 Exhibit 222, # 223 Exhibit 223, # 224 Exhibit 224, # 225 Exhibit 225, # 226 Exhibit 226, # 227 Exhibit 227, # 228 Exhibit 228, # 229 Exhibit 229, # 230 Exhibit 230, # 231 Exhibit 231, # 232 Exhibit 232, # 233 Exhibit 233, # 234 Exhibit 234, # 235 Exhibit 235, # 236 Exhibit 236, # 237 Exhibit 237, # 238 Exhibit 238, # 239 Exhibit 239, # 240 Exhibit 240, # 241 Exhibit 241, # 242 Exhibit 242, # 243 Exhibit 243, # 244 Exhibit 244, # 245 Exhibit 245, # 246 Exhibit 246, # 247 Exhibit 247, # 248 Exhibit 248, # 249 Exhibit 249, # 250 Exhibit 250, # 251 Exhibit 251, # 252 Exhibit 252, # 253 Exhibit 253, # 254 Exhibit 254, # 255 Exhibit 255, # 256 Exhibit 256, # 257 Exhibit 257, # 258 Exhibit 258, # 259 Exhibit 259, # 260 Exhibit 260, # 261 Exhibit 261)(Consovoy, William) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/18/2018: # 262 Unredacted version of Declaration, # 263 Exhibit 1 (filed under seal), # 264 Exhibit 2 (filed under seal), # 265 Exhibit 5 (filed under seal), # 266 Exhibit 6 (filed under seal), # 267 Exhibit 7 (filed under seal), # 268 Exhibit 8 (filed under seal), # 269 Exhibit 9 (filed under seal), # 270 Exhibit 10 (filed under seal)) (Montes, Mariliz). (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/18/2018: # 271 Exhibit 11 (filed under seal), # 272 Exhibit 12(filed under seal), # 273 Exhibit 13 (filed under seal), # 274 Exhibit 14 (filed under seal), # 275 Exhibit 16 (filed under seal), # 276 Exhibit 17(filed under seal), # 277 Exhibit 18(filed under seal), # 278 Exhibit 19 (filed under seal), # 279 Exhibit 20 (filed under seal), # 280 Exhibit 22 (filed under seal), # 281 Exhibit 23 (filed under seal), # 282 Exhibit 24 (filed under seal), # 283 Exhibit 25(filed under seal), # 284 Exhibit 26 (filed under seal), # 285 Exhibit 28 (filed under seal), # 286 Exhibit 29 (filed under seal), # 287 Exhibit 31 (filed under seal), # 288 Exhibit 32 (filed under seal), # 289 Exhibit 33 (filed under seal), # 290 Exhibit 35 (filed under seal), # 291 Exhibit 36 (filed under seal), # 292 Exhibit 37 (filed under seal), # 293 Exhibit 38(filed under seal), # 294 Exhibit 39 (filed under seal), # 295 Exhibit 40 (filed under seal), # 296 Exhibit 41, # 297 Exhibit 42 (filed under seal), # 298 Exhibit 43 (filed under seal), # 299 Exhibit 44(filed under seal), # 300 Exhibit 45 (filed under seal), # 301 Exhibit 46 (filed under seal), # 302 Exhibit 47 (filed under seal), # 303 Exhibit 48 (filed under seal), # 304 Exhibit 51 (filed under seal)) (Montes, Mariliz).

EXHIBIT 116

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
REGION I
JOHN W. McCORMACK POST .OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE, ROOM 222
POST OFFICE SQUARE
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109

October 4, 1990

OFFICE FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS

Mr. Derek Bok
President
Harvard University
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Re: Compliance Review No. 01-88-6009
Dear President Bok:
I am pleased to inform you that the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has completed its review of
Harvard University's undergraduate admissions program. The purpose of our investigation was to
determine whether Harvard discriminated against Asian American applicants to the Harvard-Radcliffe
undergraduate program, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section
2000d et seq., and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 100 (Title VI). OCR has
responsibility for enforcing Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or
national origin in programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance. As a recipient of
Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education, Harvard is subject to the
provisions of Title VI.
As discussed more fully below, and in the enclosed Statement of Findings, we have concluded that
Harvard has not violated Title VI with respect to the admission of Asian American applicants to the
undergraduate program. Over the last ten years Asian American applicants have been admitted at
a significantly lower rate than white applicants, however, we have concluded that this disparity is not
the result of discriminatory policies or procedures. We found no evidence of the existence or use
of quotas, nor did we find that Asian Americans were treated differently than white applicants in the
implementation of the admissions process. From information provided by Harvard and our file review
and statistical analyses, we determined that the primary cause of the disparity was the preference
given to children of alumni and recruited athletes, which adversely affected Asian Americans.
However, after examining Harvard's reasons for the preferences, we concluded that they were
legitimate and not a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, based on our determination of
compliance, we are closing our review as of the date of this letter.

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00023643

Page .2 - Mx. Derek Bok, Compliance. Review. No. 01-88-6009

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
OCR determined that Asian American applicants were admitted at a statistically significant lower rate
than white applicants in seven out of the last ten years. (OCR reviewed data from the classes of
1983-1992). Over the entire 10 year review period, we found that Asian American applicants were
admitted at a 13.2% rate, while whites were admitted at a 17.4% rate. OCR compared the
qualifications of Asian American and white applicants to determine whether weaker credentials might
have accounted for the lower Asian American admit rate. As a result of comparing SAT scores,
secondary school records, and Admissions staff and alumni ratings of Asian American and white
applicants, we found that Asian American applicants tended to be slightly stronger on academic
criteria, while whites were slightly stronger on non-academic criteria. Overall, statistical analyses
suggested that the two groups were similarly qualified, and consequently disparate admit rates could
not be explained by weaker credentials.
Accordingly, we then looked at whether the disparity was the result of the use of a numerical quota
or ceiling on the number of Asian American applicants who could be admitted. We reviewed
documents and interviewed ten members of the Harvard Admissions staff, including the Dean of
Admissions, the Director of Admissions, the Minority Recruitment Director, and several senior and
other Admissions Officers. Each of the staff members interviewed stated that he or she was unaware
of any numerical quotas or goals having been mentioned in the admissions process with respect to
the admission of Asian Americans or members of any other racial or ethnic group. We also
interviewed Harvard alumni, who served on alumni admissions committees, who similarly stated that
they knew of no numerical goals or quotas used by Harvard with respect to the admission of specific
racial or ethnic minority groups. Additionally, we interviewed former Harvard Admissions staff, and
former students who worked with the Admissions Office minority programs and were knowledgeable
about admissions practices. Finally, we interviewed numerous Asian American community leaders
who were involved with the issue of Asian American admissions. None of the individuals interviewed
provided any substantive evidence or information to suggest that Harvard imposed numerical
restrictions or quotas limiting the admission of Asian American students.
Further, in analyzing admission trends, OCR found that both the number of Asian Americans
admitted each year, and the percentage of Asian Americans in each freshman class, have increased
every year during the 10 year review period. This pattern of increase continued for the classes of
1993 and 1994. The evidence revealed that Asian Americans have gone from being 5.5% of the class
in 1983 to being 19.7% of the class of 1994. This data does not support a hypothesis that ceilings
are placed on the number of Asian Americans admitted.
OCR next investigated Harvard's established admissions policies and procedures to determine whether
Asian Americans were being treated differently than whites in the admissions process. In order to

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00023644

Page 3 - Mr. Derek Bok, Compliance Review No. 01-88-6009
evaluate Harvard's policies and procedures, we obtained and reviewed copies of Harvard's application
for admissions as well as all printed brochures describing the admissions process. We also reviewed
ten years of annual reports on Admissions from the Office of Admissions and Financial Aid, as well
as written descriptions of the admissions policies and process that were submitted by the Dean of
Admissions in response to our data request. Additionally, OCR interviewed ten members of the
Admissions staff.
As a result, we found two significant differences in Harvard's policies and procedures in terms of the
treatment of Asian Americans. First, Harvard indicated that it provides an extra reading of Asian
American applications by an Admissions Officer who is knowledgeable and sensitive to the Asian
American cultures and experiences. Second, Harvard stated that Asian American ethnicity can be
a positive factor in the admissions' process, which might make a difference in a situation where all
other factors are considered equal. We determined that these differences in the treatment of Asian
Americans were consistent with the requirements of Title VI.
OCR then conducted a comprehensive file review to determine whether Asian American and white
applicants were similarly treated in the implementation of established policies and procedures. We
reviewed 400 full applicant files randomly selected from the Classes of 1991 and 1992, including an
equal number of Asian American and white files. In addition, we reviewed approximately 2,000
Summary Sheets from applicant files, which contained narrative evaluations and numerical ratings
developed by the readers. These narratives and ratings summarize the readers' reviews of an
applicant file.
The primary purpose of OCR's review of complete files was to determine whether Asian American
and white applicants with similar qualifications, as demonstrated by the documentation in the
applicants' files, received similar reader ratings. Readers evaluated applicants on the criteria of
academics, extracurricular activities, athletics, and personal qualities, and also generated a preliminary
overall rating (POR) reflecting a reader's judgment of applicants' likelihood of admission. In
addition, the review of Summary Sheets provided additional information on the consideration of
ethnicity and other factors in the rating process.
Our review showed that there was the greatest consistency among readers' ratings in the academic
and extracurricular categories. We found that the readers consistently applied the standards found
in the Reading Procedures in these areas. OCR found that there was less consistency among readers'
ratings in the athletic and personal categories. We noted, however, that while different readers'
ratings varied slightly from other readers' ratings, there was no evidence to suggest that Asian
American applicants and white applicants with similar credentials were given different ratings. With
respect to the POR, Harvard explained that it represents a reader's individual judgment of the
strength of a candidate based on all factors and information available, not only the four rating areas.

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00023645

Page 4 - Mr. Derek Bok, Compliance Review No. 01-88-6009
As such, it was difficult to determine exactly why an applicant received a particular POR.
Nonetheless, it did not appear that Asian American and white applicants were treated differently in
the assignment of PORs.
We next sought to determine whether the disparity between Asian American and white admission
rates were due to specific criteria or factors considered in the admissions process which might have
a negative impact on Asian American applicants. Through statistical analyses, we concluded that
differences between Asian American and white applicants on ten admissions variables (four reader
ratings, SAT Math and Verbal, Alumni, Counselor and Teacher ratings, and Class Rank or
Percentage) did not account for the disparity.
We then turned our attention to the preferences Harvard gives to certain groups of applicants in the
admissions process. One of Harvard's objectives in admissions is to select a diverse group of students
from a wide range of varied backgrounds, including those from different socio-economic, racial and
ethnic groups. In fact, Harvard's catalogue states that "diversity is the hallmark of the
Harvard/Radcliffe experience." In an effort to achieve its goal of diversity among its student body,
Harvard actively recruits certain group of applicants and gives members of those groups positive
weight or consideration (i.e. "tips") in the admissions process. With respect to "tips" in general,
Harvard stated that a "tip" is a preference which may help in some situations where all other factors
are substantially equal for two candidates, but it does not ensure admission. Harvard also stated that
the admissions process is not based on a mathematical formula, and that the "tips" have no numerical
weight.
There .are three major categories of applicants for whom preferences or ''tips" are given: (1)
racial/ethnic minority groups; (2) children of alumni (legacies); and (3) recruited athletes (This
category is distinct from the reader "athletic" rating.) With respect to the racial/ethnic groups
preference, ethnicity is simply one of many considerations in the admissions process which may serve
as a positive factor (but never a negative factor) in reviewing an application. Admissions staff agreed
that Asian American ethnicity was most significant when the applicant demonstrated that he or she
overcame severe obstacles that resulted from his/her ethnicity, or when the applicant was significantly
involved in community organizations and activities, or if the applicant described the influence and
effect of ethnicity on his or her life through the application essay. There is no formula or specific
criteria for measuring or assessing ethnicity, nor are there instructions for determining how much
weight is given to ethnicity, or where the weight is to be applied in the admissions process.
Harvard has no separate instructions describing how the preference is given to legacies. However,
all legacy applicants are routinely referred to the Dean of Admissions for reading, according to
Harvard's procedures.

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00023646

Page 5 - Mr. Derek Bok, Compliance Review No. 01-$8-6009
A recruited (talented) athlete is given special weight or consideration in the admissions process as
follows. Athletes are recruited based upon their athletic accomplishments, talents and their predicted
ability to contribute to the athletic programs at Harvard. Harvard's coaches develop lists of priority
applicants for their respective teams, and these lists are considered or weighed by the Admissions
subcommittees and the full Admissions committee in making their decisions. Other than to suggest
that the higher an applicant was on a coach's priority list, the greater the weight attributed in the
admissions process, Harvard did not have specific guidelines governing the preference given to
recruited athletes. It should be noted that Harvard maintained that all applicants were viewed in light
of what they would-bring or contribute to the University, and that all ultimately had to demonstrate
that they were qualified for admission to Harvard in the eyes of the full committee.
As a result of the file review and interviews with admissions staff, OCR found a great deal of
evidence suggesting that the preferences or "tips" given to children of alumni and recruited athletes
were significant factors in the admissions process. Conversely, however, OCR also found little or no
evidence of an ethnic "tip" being given to Asian American applicants. There were no readers'
comments that suggested that an applicant's Asian ethnicity was a significant or important factor in
deciding to admit the applicant in the same way that being a legacy or a recruited athlete was
instrumental in admitting applicants. While the various "tips" or preferences could not be weighed
or defined precisely, it was clear that the ethnic tip for Asians was significantly less instrumental than
"tips" for legacies and recruited athletes in the determining whether or not to admit an applicant.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, however, the decision to give a "tip" to Asian American applicants
is a matter of institutional policy, and the failure to do so does not constitute a violation of Title VI.
OCR conducted several statistical analyses to determine the effect of these preferences on Asian
American and white admit rates. Through these analyses, OCR found a strong and distinct
correlation between the preferences or positive weight given to children of alumni and recruited
athletes, and the disparity in Asian American and white admit rates. Based on these analyses taken
together with the file review, we have concluded that the disparity in admit rates between Asian
American and white applicants can largely be explained by the preference given to legacies and
recruited athletes, groups that are predominantly white. When legacies and recruited athletes are
removed from the data, the difference between the Asian American and white admit rates is not
statistically significant in seven of the ten years we reviewed. In two of the remaining three years,
Asian Americans had significantly higher admit rates than white applicants within the restricted
sample.
Because the preferences to legacies and recruited athletes resulted in a disparity in the admit rates
between Asian Americans and whites, OCR scrutinized Harvard's reasons for giving these
preferences. Harvard has been giving a preference to applicants who are children of altiumi and to
talented athletes back to at least the beginning of the century. OCR noted that these preferences

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00023647

Page 6 - Mr. Derek Bole Compliance Review No. 01-88-6009
were given long before there was a significant number of Asian American applicants. Also, it is clear
that preferences for legacies and athletes are not unique to Harvard. Consequently, we found no
evidence to suggest that these preferences were instituted to intentionally or deliberately limit the
number of Asian Americans at Harvard. Because of the disparate impact that these preferences have
on Asian Americans, however, OCR proceeded to analyze the legitimacy of their use in the
admissions process.
Harvard asserted that its primary reasons for giving a preference to children of alumni were (1) to
encourage alumni volunteer services (such as recruiting prospective students for Harvard), (2) to
encourage alumni financial contributions, and (3) to maintain community relations. In support of
these assertions, Harvard provided information demonstrating that last year, for example, alumni
contributed over 36 million dollars to the Harvard College Fund, much of which is used to provide
financial aid and scholarships to needy students. Additionally, Harvard provided data which indicated
that over 4,000 alumni serve on Schools and Scholarship Committees that participate in recruitment
and admissions activities. Also, Harvard stated that the more than 37,000 dues-paying members of
the Harvard and Radcliffe Clubs contribute to the University in a variety of ways, including raising
scholarship funds and sponsoring Schools and Scholarship Committees. Harvard maintained that its
alumni's time, energy, money and intellectual resources were essential to maintaining the excellence
of the institution.
With respect to athletic preferences, Harvard explained that its athletic programs, like the academic
programs at Harvard, seek the very best applicants who could contribute to those programs.
Consequently, in the same way that unusually strong math or science scholars would be looked upon
favorably in the admissions process for the contributions they could make to the math or science
programs, talented athletes are looked upon favorably for the contributions they could make to the
athletic programs. Further, Harvard maintained that a varsity sports program was an integral part of
American college life, benefiting athletes and other students as well.
OCR reviewed current case law and found no legal authority to suggest that giving preferences to
legacies and recruited athletes was legally impermissible. In fact, the case law suggests that if schools
are to possess a desirable diversity, officials must retain wide discretion, with respect to the manner
of selecting students. The courts have generally been reluctant, if not unwilling to dictate what
considerations or methods of selection are to be given priority in college admissions. OCR finds that
the reasons or goals provided by Harvard for giving preferences to children of alumni and recruited
athletes are legitimate institutional goals, and not a pretext for discrimination against Asian
Americans. Additionally, Harvard asserted, and OCR accepts, that there are no alternatives to these
preferences that could effectively accomplish the same legitimate goals.

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00023648

Page 7 - Mr. Derek Sok, Compliance Review No. 01-88-6009
In light of the evidence, and the lack of any legal authority suggesting that such preferences are
impermissible, OCR finds that Harvard's use of preferences for children of alumni and recruited
athletes, while disproportionately benefitting white applicants, does not violate Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 or its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 100. Further, as a result of all
the evidence and information evaluated during this compliance review, it is OCR's overall conclusion
that Harvard did not discriminate against Asian American applicants to its undergraduate program,
in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R.
Part 100. Please be advised that this letter is not intended nor should it be construed to cover any
other issues regarding compliance with Title 'VI not addressed in this letter.
As previously agreed, we are returning the computer data tape and the copies of full and edited
Summary Sheets that were provided by Harvard for our mutual administrative convenience. Under
the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552, it may be necessary to release this document
and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a
request, we will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personal information which, if
released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Please express to your staff, particularly Dean William R. Fitzsimmons, my appreciation for the
courtesy and cooperation extended to this office throughout the course of our lengthy investigation.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to telephone me at [phone].
Sincerely,

Thomas 3. Hibino
Acting Regional Director

Enclosures

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00023649